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

[Discombobulated]

... 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

There are no examples of "a democracy" anywhere in history. And yes.....the premise in the video is incredibly stupid pop culture revisionist history.....absolute dog shit.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

The election of Senators was changed by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT


which pretty much gutted state rights

 

[SwimExpert]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

... 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.

The outcome of prop8 says states cannot take away rights protected by the US Constitution.

In Massachusetts, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall basically said laws singling out individuals who are gay form entering into a marriage contract before the state were against the state constitution. She wrote people could remedy that by amending the state constitution to deny gays this right. This was beautiful in that if it had happened a suit in federal court would have ensued: a state law denying gays the marriage contract right would violate the federal constitution.

True popular democracy is an evil

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

NUTS!: "to advocate and vote on laws and legislation that promoted the power of the States over the power of the Federal government."

talk about wingnuttery and brain functions -- geeze

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

... 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.

take the plug out of your butt willya wilma?

Lots of lefties are religious. They are as obnoxious as right wing religious only slightly less dangerous to the polity.

Freedom from state sponsored religious settings not freedom from religion

Lots of conservatives are atheists

 

[thereisnospoon]

And Nazis and Fascists were far right, your video doesn't change history. Right wing is defined as ultra conservative and reactionary....there is no controversy about that.

No..Conservatives are proactive.
Liberals are reactive.
As a matter of course, liberals will ignore a problem and hope it goes away.
Conservatives do not see "problems". We see challenges.
Liberals will use a problem to turn it into a crisis which then must only be dealt with politically.

 

[peach174]

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

I agree with facts and distinctions that is what I have done.
I am not the only one here that has not been taught by a lefty history professor, like you have that twists our history.
And you have a real problem with anyone who has a different point of view other than your own.
I put up part of an actual letter from Ben Franklin from 1766 in more of it's context since you said it was taken out of context and then you insult.
So who is really the dolt?

 

[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?

The election of Senators was changed by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT


which pretty much gutted state rights

I guess then it's the Constitution itself that you have a problem with.

 

[jon_berzerk]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

The election of Senators was changed by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT


which pretty much gutted state rights

I guess then it's the Constitution itself that you have a problem with.

bullshit

 

[NYcarbineer]

State referendums are direct democracy. aka, mob rule as the conservatives like to call it.

Examples of that 'mob rule' would be California's prop 13, the property tax limitation from 1978,

and California's prop 8, the anti-same sex marriage prop.

As you can see,

conservatives hate direct democracy, right up until it advances their partisan agenda,

and then they love it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

lol, statist.

The People of each state get to pick their senators. What is undemocratic about that?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Not semantics and not pointless, but distinctions with a difference: The later amendments spoke to rights many people thought the Constitution protected (others not so). In the opinion(s) of myself and others, the amendments you speak of did not change the Constitution much in the way you present it. You present it as almost a wholly new thing.

It was always "the national governments job to ensure that the privileges and immunities of its citizens" GUARANTEED and enumerated in the US Constitution, were "not violated by the States." Were Negroes (slaves) full citizens? Not always. When I wrote "changed" earlier, I did so with the meaning you had attached to the term: new. Of course amendments change it, but how and to what effect is the point of contention

 

[jon_berzerk]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

lol, statist.

The People of each state get to pick their senators. What is undemocratic about that?

i dont know what is so funny about that

the senate was for the voice of the state chosen by the state

actually there is no need for a senate at this point since we already

elect reps by popular vote

 

[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.

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

as explained in another post, Skylar was saying we had a new constitution as in amending changed it totally. As in a new constitution.
Of course amendments change things, but to what degree and how? Those are issues of contention between people trying to make extreme and incredible arguments and those like moi who demand argument and clarificaton

 

[Skylar]

Better is an overly subjective term to use.

Its subjective, but not overly so. I've given you my criteria and my evidence. You can agree or disagree. Approaching double the years without a civil war is pretty difficult to argue with. As is the lack of slavery. Women's suffrage. And all those gay guys we're not executing for sodomy.

Or constitution is better. Our understanding of rights is vastly superior. And we've corrected many of the truck sized flaws in the constitution as it was written.

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

The founders clearly didn't recognize the rights and freedoms we do today. We recognize and protect more. The founders executed homosexuals. We recognize their marriages. The founders enslaved millions of people of African descent. We elected one president. Women weren't allowed to vote. Women vote more often than men now.

You can imagine that say, slaves could always exercise the rights we recognize all men possess today. But they didn't. You can imagine that women always had the right to vote. But they didn't. We may one day recognize the right to gay marriage. But history remains a testament to long years where the rights weren't recognized or protected.

We've done better. Not just little better. But orders of magnitude better, extending rights to those that didn't possess them, extending the franchise, protecting more rights and abolishing the abomination of slavery that the founders jealously guarded. You may not recognize any distinction. The slave in the field and the gay man being executed for sodomy most certainly could.

The Bill of Rights did apply to the states.

Not according to the USSC, which explicitly found that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. The Feds were forced to allow a State government to violate the rights of an individual in that State....as the Bill of Rights didn't restrict the actions of the State.

The 14th amendment and selective incorporation fixed that to a large degree, as it was intended to.

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

Amendments are alterations. Changes. You can claim that they aren't changes, but you run head long into the meaning of words and the pointlessness of argument that is entirely semantics. Especially when the changes are profound. Slavery, women's suffrage, the prohibition of States from violating rights. These remade our society.

And demonstrated how much better we are at recognizing, protecting and extending rights than the founders ever were.

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.

[/quote]

We fixed it. They failed to. They couldn't. They were bound by their own economic interests, personal greed, a lack of moral courage, social mores, or a lack of consensus.

We've done better. We've made that consensus. We've extended rights the founders never could. Just as we have to women, to blacks, to non-property owners, protecting them all from the tyranny of the majority in the State governments. The founders couldn't. The founders didn't. Their constitution didn't allow for it.

Ours does. Which is why ours is better.

The Civil War was fought over slavery.

Exactly. The founders lacked the capacity to resolve the issue, kicking the can down the road of history where the cancer of slavery metastasized and spread, gaining deeper roots and more victims. Their failures led to the Civil War. The government they created enabled the very institution that the civil war was predicated upon.

Our constitution does resolve that issue. It innately better. Its more just, extending more rights to more people, empowering more to wield the authority of suffrage, abolishing the evil of slavery, recognizing and protecting more rights than the founders ever could.

We've done better.

 

[eagle1462010]

Good video explaining the types of Gov't of the world.............

It is absolutely correct that under a Democracy 50% plus 1 rules..........even when the minus 1 side objects to what the Majority want.

Dems always say we are a Democracy, which isn't true............but it is what many of them want. Had we just wanted a Democracy then there never would have been a need for a Senate. Which is exactly why the founders created the Senate so that ALL STATES would have an equal vote in our Gov't...........irregardless of the population.............Intended to be the voice of the STATE LEGISLATURE................Which is exactly why they were considered more of a diplomat for the State...............go against the will of the State legislature who is elected by the people of that state and you could be recalled and replaced.

The reason for this is because the founders believed the State Governments should have a direct VOICE in our REPUBLIC....................Changed by the liberal Wilson during a temporary time, when they created a mob and changed our Republic.................It was a mistake then, and is a mistake now..............as the State Legislature look at new Federal Laws to see how it impacts the State Gov't. Sorry, the average guy or gal from that state don't research the new laws to see how it would effect the laws or COSTS to the States as imposed by the Federal Gov't.

Either way...............the founders purposely put in checks and balances to ensure that laws are not easy to pass to ensure DUMB ASS laws don't make it. Smart men, and they were correct then and their principles are correct now.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And Nazis and Fascists were far right, your video doesn't change history. Right wing is defined as ultra conservative and reactionary....there is no controversy about that.

No..Conservatives are proactive.
Liberals are reactive.
As a matter of course, liberals will ignore a problem and hope it goes away.
Conservatives do not see "problems". We see challenges.
Liberals will use a problem to turn it into a crisis which then must only be dealt with politically.

Obamacare? Immigration? Culture wars?

Conservatives are reactionaries . even Newt claimed he represented radical reactionaries

 

[eagle1462010]

To the issue of Slavery during the Founders time..............It was normal during that time............As time changes, people change and correct what is wrong............which has happened over our history.

But, you must look at it in the context of the time period................During that time people were simply different and believed in some things we don't believe in today..................Slavery is BS in my book, but I choose to look at history objectively.