America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[Skylar]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

A better republic than the founders were ever able to produce would. Theirs lasted about 85 years before descending into civil war to resolve many of the fatal flaws in the founder's constitution.

We've vastly improved on their flaws. And we're pushing 150 years without a civil war using our superior constitution. Which includes the very provisions you cited.

A 'proper republic' needs defining and agreement

A 'better republic' -- our 'superior constitution'?????

A better republic....one's that more viable, includes more rights and freedoms, involves more people in the democratic process. The founder's constitution didn't even apply the Bill of Rights to the States. The States could and did violate the rights of individuals. Women couldn't vote. Non-land owners couldn't vote. And then there's the herd of elephants in the living room:

Slavery.

Our constitution isn't just better. Its vastly superior. It protects rights much more fully. It protects more equitable treatment under the law. And its fundamentally more viable. And it explicitly outlaws the cancerous institution of slavery that the founders protected and fractionally codified into their supreme law of the land.

We're slowly approaching double the years without a civil war that the founders ever managed. And there's no civil war in sight.

 

[thereisnospoon]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

They absolutely ARE..
A true democracy is governed by 50% plus one. Also, it is absent of remedy for those in opposition.
California and New Jersey are about the closest resemblance to democracies.
California is a "Proposition" state. Where voters can through petitioning of the State legislature or by public petition place a question on a local or statewide ballot that would be binding.
New Jersey is a "binding referendum state"..The process is similar to California in one way. The state government or local government can place a question on a voting ballot.
The decision of the voters is final.
Also NJ is a "home rule" state. Meaning, local government entities such as town or city councils and school board have absolute taxing authority.
In all cases, Propositions and referendums must meet constitutional muster.
The irony, these two states are among the highest in the USA in terms of tax burden. Have some of the worst government deficits and debts and have gargantuan unfunded pension obligations

 

[Skylar]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

A better republic than the founders were ever able to produce would. Theirs lasted about 85 years before descending into civil war to resolve many of the fatal flaws in the founder's constitution.

We've vastly improved on their flaws. And we're pushing 150 years without a civil war using our superior constitution. Which includes the very provisions you cited.

A 'proper republic' needs defining and agreement

A 'better republic' -- our 'superior constitution'?????

There is no 'better' in the context of then versus now. In many ways they got the BEST they could.

and Superior to what? Was it superior before the Civil War? Did it change after the Civil War?

It did change after the Civil War. Most principally, the 14th Amendment enforces the Bill of Rights against the states. So now the Federal Gov't can actually assure to each state a republican form of government.

Well, that was the intention of the 14th ammendment. The Slaughter House cases took the piss out of the Amendment. But the court began incorporating the Bill of Rights in earnest around the turn of the century.

 

[Skylar]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

They absolutely ARE..
A true democracy is governed by 50% plus one. Also, it is absent of remedy for those in opposition.
California and New Jersey are about the closest resemblance to democracies.
California is a "Proposition" state. Where voters can through petitioning of the State legislature or by public petition place a question on a local or statewide ballot that would be binding.
New Jersey is a "binding referendum state"..The process is similar to California in one way. The state government or local government can place a question on a voting ballot.
The decision of the voters is final.

The outcome of Prop 8 says otherwise.

 

[Darkwind]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

What's surprising to me is that people consider themselves conservatives and at the same time don't want their senators popularly elected.

They don't want that because they have a cockeyed notion that there is a conservative partisan advantage to the old way of electing Senators.

You can always trace a puzzling conservative 'principle' to some selfish ideological/partisan motive.

you really do excel at being wrong.

The wingnuttery is purely left-wing. The choice to remove the election of Senators from the States to popular elections was part of the overall progressive construct for the elimination of States in favor of one overarching, oppressive government. The Senators, whose job prior to the bastardization of the Constitution with the 17th, was to advocate and vote on laws and legislation that promoted the power of the States over the power of the Federal government.

When the Senate became a body by mob rule, the weakening of States rights began. We are seeing the fruit of this ideology in the nearly incapacitate ability of the States to tell the Fed to remain out of their sovereign rights.

For the Record.

WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION.

That makes our government a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

The brain dead among you who think otherwise should go back to your handlers for clarification of terms.

 

[Agit8r]

Here in WA we have initiatives too

 

[thereisnospoon]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

Oh I'm sorry the video left you "Discombobulated," but perhaps that's why you call yourself that.

Well I'm afraid it's already dumbed down so that a first grader could understand it so, you'll just have to be embarrassed for being so stupid.

Perhaps you're just a little too slow to understand that democracy is one component of a constitutional republic......they are not mutually exclusive.

Of course not. However, like "freedom of religion" being bastardized into freedom FROM religion, you lefties have a nasty little habit of once getting hold of something you take it and run with it...Meaning, you cannot be trusted.
Your brand of progress has left a trail of train wrecks symbolized by unintended consequences.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

A better republic than the founders were ever able to produce would. Theirs lasted about 85 years before descending into civil war to resolve many of the fatal flaws in the founder's constitution.

We've vastly improved on their flaws. And we're pushing 150 years without a civil war using our superior constitution. Which includes the very provisions you cited.

A 'proper republic' needs defining and agreement

A 'better republic' -- our 'superior constitution'?????

There is no 'better' in the context of then versus now. In many ways they got the BEST they could.

and Superior to what? Was it superior before the Civil War? Did it change after the Civil War?

It did change after the Civil War. Most principally, the 14th Amendment enforces the Bill of Rights against the states. So now the Federal Gov't can actually assure to each state a republican form of government.

Enforces? Against?

I'd say an amendment to the Constitution was added. I would not say the Constitution was changed.

It is not the national government's job to assure or not each state having a republican form of government. States have their very own constitutions.

Republics can and have had slaves. Republicanism does not guarantee equality for everyone. Republics can have non citizens with lesser to few rights.

 

[Skylar]

I'd say an amendment to the Constitution was added. I would not say the Constitution was changed.

Then you're arguing pointless semantics. As the constitution was different after the amendment than it was before. The very beating heart of change.

It is not the national government's job to assure or not each state having a republican form of government. States have their very own constitutions.

After the 14th amendment and selective incorporation by the courts, it is the national governments job to ensure that the privileges and immunities of its citizens are not violated by the States. And that its citizens receive equal protection in the law from State governments.

 

[francoHFW]

It used to be and unless we take our country back towards it, we can kiss it good bye

You ever notice every Democrat calls us a Democracy?

It's a representative democracy, the definition of a republic. And, yes, we have a wonderful constitution, thank god, to protect us from brainwashed RW functional morons.

 

[Agit8r]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

A better republic than the founders were ever able to produce would. Theirs lasted about 85 years before descending into civil war to resolve many of the fatal flaws in the founder's constitution.

We've vastly improved on their flaws. And we're pushing 150 years without a civil war using our superior constitution. Which includes the very provisions you cited.

A 'proper republic' needs defining and agreement

A 'better republic' -- our 'superior constitution'?????

There is no 'better' in the context of then versus now. In many ways they got the BEST they could.

and Superior to what? Was it superior before the Civil War? Did it change after the Civil War?

It did change after the Civil War. Most principally, the 14th Amendment enforces the Bill of Rights against the states. So now the Federal Gov't can actually assure to each state a republican form of government.

Enforces? Against?

I'd say an amendment to the Constitution was added. I would not say the Constitution was changed.

It is not the national government's job to assure or not each state having a republican form of government. States have their very own constitutions.

Republics can and have had slaves. Republicanism does not guarantee equality for everyone. Republics can have non citizens with lesser to few rights.

I'm not sure what you think that the word "amend" means.

 

[Dot Com]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

Oh I'm sorry the video left you "Discombobulated," but perhaps that's why you call yourself that.

Well I'm afraid it's already dumbed down so that a first grader could understand it so, you'll just have to be embarrassed for being so stupid.

Perhaps you're just a little too slow to understand that democracy is one component of a constitutional republic......they are not mutually exclusive.

Of course not. However, like "freedom of religion" being bastardized into freedom FROM religion, you lefties have a nasty little habit of once getting hold of something you take it and run with it...Meaning, you cannot be trusted.
Your brand of progress has left a trail of train wrecks symbolized by unintended consequences.

I'm a "lefty" and a honorably discharged veteran. I can't be trusted? thereisnospoon

​

 

[francoHFW]

And courts are included in the constitutin, to protect us from a hateful majority. Not perfect, just the best so far. Too bad greedy idiot Pubs are perverting our country with big money, and a giant bs propaganda machine, hater dupes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

What's surprising to me is that people consider themselves conservatives and at the same time don't want their senators popularly elected.

They don't want that because they have a cockeyed notion that there is a conservative partisan advantage to the old way of electing Senators.

You can always trace a puzzling conservative 'principle' to some selfish ideological/partisan motive.

you really do excel at being wrong.

The wingnuttery is purely left-wing. The choice to remove the election of Senators from the States to popular elections was part of the overall progressive construct for the elimination of States in favor of one overarching, oppressive government. The Senators, whose job prior to the bastardization of the Constitution with the 17th, was to advocate and vote on laws and legislation that promoted the power of the States over the power of the Federal government.

When the Senate became a body by mob rule, the weakening of States rights began. We are seeing the fruit of this ideology in the nearly incapacitate ability of the States to tell the Fed to remain out of their sovereign rights.

For the Record.

WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION.

That makes our government a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

The brain dead among you who think otherwise should go back to your handlers for clarification of terms.

1. Who outside any state votes for the Senators of that state?

2. The election of Senators was changed by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Are you rejecting the Constitution,

period?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

A better republic than the founders were ever able to produce would. Theirs lasted about 85 years before descending into civil war to resolve many of the fatal flaws in the founder's constitution.

We've vastly improved on their flaws. And we're pushing 150 years without a civil war using our superior constitution. Which includes the very provisions you cited.

A 'proper republic' needs defining and agreement

A 'better republic' -- our 'superior constitution'?????

A better republic....one's that more viable, includes more rights and freedoms, involves more people in the democratic process. The founder's constitution didn't even apply the Bill of Rights to the States. The States could and did violate the rights of individuals. Women couldn't vote. Non-land owners couldn't vote. And then there's the herd of elephants in the living room:

Slavery.

Our constitution isn't just better. Its vastly superior. It protects rights much more fully. It protects more equitable treatment under the law. And its fundamentally more viable. And it explicitly outlaws the cancerous institution of slavery that the founders protected and fractionally codified into their supreme law of the land.

We're slowly approaching double the years without a civil war that the founders ever managed. And there's no civil war in sight.

You're all over the place in being subjective and just plain wrong on too many things.

Better is an overly subjective term to use. By whose standards, by what measurements?

More rights and freedoms? Rights and freedoms recognized in case law were not added -- they were recognized as being there all along.

The Bill of Rights did apply to the states. Some states just chose to interpret things differently or even refused to recognize the authority of the national government to enforce the Bill of Rights.

Our Constitution is the same one that existed over a few hundred years ago -- with a few amendments.

The framers, not the founders drafted the US Constitution. It was ratified by the people of the states. Important distinctions

The evil of slavery existed. Even some slave holders wanted to end it over time. There were arguments about it all over the place. The Constitution you claim to worship and adore was a compromise document. Without slavery being recognized there would have been NO Constitution or United States.

The Civil War was fought over slavery.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

What's surprising to me is that people consider themselves conservatives and at the same time don't want their senators popularly elected.

They don't want that because they have a cockeyed notion that there is a conservative partisan advantage to the old way of electing Senators.

You can always trace a puzzling conservative 'principle' to some selfish ideological/partisan motive.

you really do excel at being wrong.

The wingnuttery is purely left-wing. The choice to remove the election of Senators from the States to popular elections was part of the overall progressive construct for the elimination of States in favor of one overarching, oppressive government. The Senators, whose job prior to the bastardization of the Constitution with the 17th, was to advocate and vote on laws and legislation that promoted the power of the States over the power of the Federal government.

When the Senate became a body by mob rule, the weakening of States rights began. We are seeing the fruit of this ideology in the nearly incapacitate ability of the States to tell the Fed to remain out of their sovereign rights.

For the Record.

WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION.

That makes our government a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

The brain dead among you who think otherwise should go back to your handlers for clarification of terms.

The above is too stupid for words. But I'll be glad to attempt words to show how stupid it is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The numbers are still the same. 2/3rds.

Both a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures are two separate animals. Granted a CC has never been called to amend - yet, so far

Nodding....one involves the Federal Government. The other doesn't. But the numbers are still the same: 2/3rds.

yep, the numbers in themselves are the same, but it is not really about the actual number(s). It is about what the numbers represent. Step back and maybe you will see the forest ... (forest for the trees?)

What part of 'one involves the federal government and the other doesn't' makes you think I don't understand the processes involved?

He is trying to make some gotcha point about it having to be a super majority.
Dante loves word games.

really? You're wrong again. Facts matter as do distinctions for without each, we get more dolts like you

 

[SwimExpert]

Mutually exclusive events - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Agit8r]

In any case, the democratic excesses that past philosophers have warned about seem to be greatly celebrated by the far right. Like when bigots assassinate their fellow citizens in the street without the constraint of law.

 

[Darkwind]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

What's surprising to me is that people consider themselves conservatives and at the same time don't want their senators popularly elected.

They don't want that because they have a cockeyed notion that there is a conservative partisan advantage to the old way of electing Senators.

You can always trace a puzzling conservative 'principle' to some selfish ideological/partisan motive.

you really do excel at being wrong.

The wingnuttery is purely left-wing. The choice to remove the election of Senators from the States to popular elections was part of the overall progressive construct for the elimination of States in favor of one overarching, oppressive government. The Senators, whose job prior to the bastardization of the Constitution with the 17th, was to advocate and vote on laws and legislation that promoted the power of the States over the power of the Federal government.

When the Senate became a body by mob rule, the weakening of States rights began. We are seeing the fruit of this ideology in the nearly incapacitate ability of the States to tell the Fed to remain out of their sovereign rights.

For the Record.

WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION.

That makes our government a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

The brain dead among you who think otherwise should go back to your handlers for clarification of terms.

1. Who outside any state votes for the Senators of that state?

2. The election of Senators was changed by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Are you rejecting the Constitution,

period?

Amendments have been set aside before. Prohibition comes to mind. The 17ths is equally, if not more so, damaging to the United States.

As for number 1. You hoist yourself up on your petard. The Senate was chosen by State Legislatures. Who, but the people, vote for their State Legislatures?

The question is one of responsibility. A Senator beholden to his or her state is far more likely to protect the State's rights. A Senator, elected by the people, is nothing more than a renamed US Representative and beholden to a far smaller constituency, a constituency that may not have the states best interest at heart.

I know I'm wasting My time, but this explanation is more for those who can read and think, not so much for you.