Democracy: Yes or No

[Wry Catcher]

I think there is a difference between democracy and republicanism, although it is easily overlooked. Our system is republican in that the Founders understood that the public is the only legitimate sovereign of government. But it is not wholly democratic, in that they feared the abuse of that authority by the people and designed an instrument of government intended to keep temporary, imprudent, and intemperate outbursts of public opinion from dominating the body politic.

We the People elect electors for President and Vice President, a democratic process; we elected our Representatives in the H. or Rep. directly, clearly a democratic process; we directly elect Senators, once again a clearly democratic process.

We the People directly elect the Governors of our states, their representatives in their legislatures, and every city and town elect councils, boards of supervisors, mayors, school boards and Superintendents, etc. etc.

IMO it's time for the nine members of the USSC to be vetted by the voters on their 10th, 20th and 30th anniversaries closest to the General Election when the President is elected and be retired at age 70.

All well and good, what would be needed is a Constitutional amendment to do so. Do you know how long that takes?

Yep. But when Art III was written the authors and then signers likely never considered a life time appointment might be over more than half a century.

 

[Rustic]

More food for thought:

Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

For those, many who post on this message board, it seems they oppose universal suffrage and would prefer that only an elite should be eligible to vote.

For a long while some posters have denied we are a democratic republic, and prefer to use constitutional republic, some seek to overturn the 17th Amendment and some would require only property owners the right to vote.

Even the Supreme Court has watered down democracy in the two Citizen's United decisions and overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act to combat racial discrimination in voting.

"We have met the enemy and he is us"
Pogo

What ever happened to noblesse oblige: " the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged."

Lol
This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy… personal attack removed

 

[Wry Catcher]

Federal republic - Wikipedia

Here is your answer...

Reading the text, one must conclude we live in a democratic republic. COTUS defines the method which establishes a balance of power, between three separate branches.

Yes Wry Catcher a Democratic Republic
is not the same as a pure Democracy.

Thank you. We are of course a represented democracy, something not well understood by too many above.

youre the only one that seems confused,,,

Dear Wry Catcher
Since we are in agreement that America is a
Representative Democracy or
Democratic Republic
then is the confusion over the language/terms?

That "Representative Democracy" is still NOT
the same as saying "America is a Democracy"
America is DEMOCRATIC but within a Republic
or Representative system. We elect offices such
as Senators who vote on behalf of the states and people represented.

Where we have divisions is with changes such as
* Senators no longer being appointed by States but getting voted on by people similar to House Reps. There are arguments this defeats the purpose of Senators serving as a check on the House of Reps.
One represents the State the other the People, so that's one area where it is argued that the Representative system was there for a reason, and voting directly by the people defeats it because the House of Reps is for that and the Senators were originally designed to be selected differently on purpose.

And another area that I believe we have strayed and messed up:
* We are allowing Govt officials in legislative positions as well as Judges in Courts to decide matters of BELIEFS instead of respecting and protecting individual free choice.

You don't take your beliefs and put that up for a democratic vote by the public to mandate for everyone!

So that is messed up, and has always caused problems between groups fighting for different political beliefs. Instead of continuing that trend of oppressing the minority group by pushing a majority narrative, I believe we are overdue to address this area of "political beliefs" especially "political parties" and decide how to check this similar to checks on govt.

To be clear and concise please consider this, every even year We the People can change their representative in the H. of Rep. by their votes. Every six years we can send our Senator home, and every fourth year we can send the President home.

That seems to be Democratic, and the fact that the people can hire and fire our representatives in The Congress and White House is where the power remains, as long as the good well of our elected officials follow the rule of law set forth in COTUS.

This has never been of concern, until Trump took office.

 

[OKTexas]

More food for thought:

Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

For those, many who post on this message board, it seems they oppose universal suffrage and would prefer that only an elite should be eligible to vote.

For a long while some posters have denied we are a democratic republic, and prefer to use constitutional republic, some seek to overturn the 17th Amendment and some would require only property owners the right to vote.

Even the Supreme Court has watered down democracy in the two Citizen's United decisions and overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act to combat racial discrimination in voting.

"We have met the enemy and he is us"
Pogo

What ever happened to noblesse oblige: " the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged."

Democracy ends at the State lines, every person elected to serve in federal offices are elected by the States. That is exactly what is prescribed by the Constitution, hence we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Vote totals within each State are the only ones that count. Period, end of story.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A question for fans of democracy - how far should it go? The democratic socialists think that everything should be run democratically. Or, to be completely accurate, the quote from their website says they "believe that both economy and society should be run democratically". That sounds like everything to me, but feel free to quibble.

In my view, democracy is only useful, and only justified, when we really do need to force conformity. When we all need to decide on one course of action and abide by that decision. In all other cases, people should be free to go their own way.

A democracy of loons soon destroys a nation

America has brought a much wider democracy than the founders. Who set 21 as the min age to vote

And the founders would not let the unwise vote at all and we do

Why did we change

Democracy always brings the changes that destroys a nation

The voting age was reduced to 18, a result of the number of teenagers who were fighting in Vietnam. It was not a new situation, one day when on liberty I went to the Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, and by happenstance walked along a row of graves whose deaths occurred on the same day on the same atoll, and most were under the age of 21. There were more than two dozen graves of Marines who never voted, but lost their lives so we could vote.

Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery - Point Loma - San Diego, CA

 

[emilynghiem]

Reading the text, one must conclude we live in a democratic republic. COTUS defines the method which establishes a balance of power, between three separate branches.

Yes Wry Catcher a Democratic Republic
is not the same as a pure Democracy.

Thank you. We are of course a represented democracy, something not well understood by too many above.

youre the only one that seems confused,,,

Dear Wry Catcher
Since we are in agreement that America is a
Representative Democracy or
Democratic Republic
then is the confusion over the language/terms?

That "Representative Democracy" is still NOT
the same as saying "America is a Democracy"
America is DEMOCRATIC but within a Republic
or Representative system. We elect offices such
as Senators who vote on behalf of the states and people represented.

Where we have divisions is with changes such as
* Senators no longer being appointed by States but getting voted on by people similar to House Reps. There are arguments this defeats the purpose of Senators serving as a check on the House of Reps.
One represents the State the other the People, so that's one area where it is argued that the Representative system was there for a reason, and voting directly by the people defeats it because the House of Reps is for that and the Senators were originally designed to be selected differently on purpose.

And another area that I believe we have strayed and messed up:
* We are allowing Govt officials in legislative positions as well as Judges in Courts to decide matters of BELIEFS instead of respecting and protecting individual free choice.

You don't take your beliefs and put that up for a democratic vote by the public to mandate for everyone!

So that is messed up, and has always caused problems between groups fighting for different political beliefs. Instead of continuing that trend of oppressing the minority group by pushing a majority narrative, I believe we are overdue to address this area of "political beliefs" especially "political parties" and decide how to check this similar to checks on govt.

To be clear and concise please consider this, every even year We the People can change their representative in the H. of Rep. by their votes. Every six years we can send our Senator home, and every fourth year we can send the President home.

That seems to be Democratic, and the fact that the people can hire and fire our representatives in The Congress and White House is where the power remains, as long as the good well of our elected officials follow the rule of law set forth in COTUS.

This has never been of concern, until Trump took office.

Clinton and Bush also raised national concerns, not just Obama and then Trump.

Bush's overreaching of executive authority was contested as unconstitutional (or extra constitutionally by basing some decisions on UN policies outside Govt duty to the Constitution), but was generally "justified" and accepted anyway because of war powers and national security/defense issues that are seen as compelling govt interest.

What Obama and Pelosi did by overreaching Federal Authority with the ACA was also contested and did not carry the same "compelling interest" as with Bush claiming executive and federal authority because of militant attacks on US soil.

Wry Catcher I don't think it is fair to say this never was an issue before Trump. Even with Clinton, the fact that "prolife" advocates are not represented equally with "prochoice" leaders in office, this is an example of one issue where BELIEFS have been defended or imposed by "representatives" claiming the right by majority rule or judicial rule to "establish" policies biased toward the dominating sides' BELIEFS.

This is arguably against the Constitution for govt to establish or prohibit issues of BELIEFS, but that's how the current system has been used.

I noticed when Clinton took office in the 90's this battling to establish or defend political beliefs came out in the forefront, starting with ABORTION politics with Clinton, and then the division over the Patriot Act and War powers with Bush, then the Health Care and LGBT policies with Obama, and now with Trump the clashing between beliefs over the Wall and Immigration has come out as well.

Wry Catcher the issue is: even in a Representative Democracy or Democratic Republic, people DID NOT concede to govt the authority to DICTATE beliefs or creeds by "majority rule" or by "judicial rule".

There are limits in the Constitution to what we authority Govt officials to "represent" us on, and faith based beliefs is not one of them. However, I noticed starting with Clinton and the clash between prolife and prochoice beliefs, that these political beliefs started coming out because liberals/Democrats began pushing more publicly in OPPOSITION to "Christians and prolife".

So in creating a reactionary PUSH to establish opposing BELIEFS through Govt, the Rightwing had to start pushing equally "through govt" to DEFEND the Christian and Prolife beliefs under attack for political gain.

That's when I first sensed that political beliefs were leading to public battles that weren't going to stop until these conflicts are fully resolved.

In the meantime, it has skewed and manipulated the "system of representation" where political beliefs have been pushed into govt to the extent of VIOLATING Constitutional limits on govt representation and authority.

 

[westwall]

Q. Why attack CNN, why not respond rationally and consider the points I made with some thought and not echo Limbaugh.

American isnt a democracy,,,,

What are we than?

Because they are shit. They have been known as the Clinton news network for decades

 

[GreenAndBlue]

A question for fans of democracy - how far should it go? The democratic socialists think that everything should be run democratically. Or, to be completely accurate, the quote from their website says they "believe that both economy and society should be run democratically". That sounds like everything to me, but feel free to quibble.

In my view, democracy is only useful, and only justified, when we really do need to force conformity. When we all need to decide on one course of action and abide by that decision. In all other cases, people should be free to go their own way.

A democracy of loons soon destroys a nation

America has brought a much wider democracy than the founders. Who set 21 as the min age to vote

And the founders would not let the unwise vote at all and we do

Why did we change

Democracy always brings the changes that destroys a nation

The voting age was reduced to 18, a result of the number of teenagers who were fighting in Vietnam. It was not a new situation, one day when on liberty I went to the Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, and by happenstance walked along a row of graves whose deaths occurred on the same day on the same atoll, and most were under the age of 21. There were more than two dozen graves of Marines who never voted, but lost their lives so we could vote.

Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery - Point Loma - San Diego, CA

The founders had much more under 18 fighting and dying but had enough wisdom to understand not to let the voters be too young with less experience to understand good and bad

 

[GreenAndBlue]

More food for thought:

Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

For those, many who post on this message board, it seems they oppose universal suffrage and would prefer that only an elite should be eligible to vote.

For a long while some posters have denied we are a democratic republic, and prefer to use constitutional republic, some seek to overturn the 17th Amendment and some would require only property owners the right to vote.

Even the Supreme Court has watered down democracy in the two Citizen's United decisions and overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act to combat racial discrimination in voting.

"We have met the enemy and he is us"
Pogo

What ever happened to noblesse oblige: " the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged."

Democracy ends at the State lines, every person elected to serve in federal offices are elected by the States. That is exactly what is prescribed by the Constitution, hence we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Vote totals within each State are the only ones that count. Period, end of story.

.

The states are a democracy

And the democracy of the states wins

With certain limits. Like with the electoral college

But a democracy high enough can change the constitution

Our democracy now has advanced to the suicide part

Lowest iqs ever voting

And each cycle another record low iqs voting

Straight to suicide

Unless the high logics rises up and uses its real power

 

[daveman]

What ever happened to noblesse oblige: " the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged."

That perfectly sums up the motivation of the left. The poor proles need someone to do their thinking for them (because they might choose to think unapproved thoughts, tsk tsk), so we'll decide what they want.

 

[daveman]

Oh. My. Heavens. So when Obama and Holder refused Congressional subpoenas of documents relating to their Fast and Furious operation, which got a border agent killed, was our "democracy" in crisis? When Obama and Clinton stonewalled the Benghazi Select Committee on document requests relating to Benghazi (to cover up their fatal incompetence), was our "democracy" in crisis? (Actually, we are a republic, not a democracy.)

The Official Opinion that Fly Catcher was given from CNN is It's Okay When Democrats Do It.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

For a long while some posters have denied we are a democratic republic, and prefer to use constitutional republic, some seek to overturn the 17th Amendment and some would require only property owners the right to vote.

I would require that communists (you) NOT get the right to vote. If you're lucky, that's all we will do to you.

.

 

[daveman]

Reading the text, one must conclude we live in a democratic republic. COTUS defines the method which establishes a balance of power, between three separate branches.

Yes Wry Catcher a Democratic Republic
is not the same as a pure Democracy.

Thank you. We are of course a represented democracy, something not well understood by too many above.

youre the only one that seems confused,,,

Dear Wry Catcher
Since we are in agreement that America is a
Representative Democracy or
Democratic Republic
then is the confusion over the language/terms?

That "Representative Democracy" is still NOT
the same as saying "America is a Democracy"
America is DEMOCRATIC but within a Republic
or Representative system. We elect offices such
as Senators who vote on behalf of the states and people represented.

Where we have divisions is with changes such as
* Senators no longer being appointed by States but getting voted on by people similar to House Reps. There are arguments this defeats the purpose of Senators serving as a check on the House of Reps.
One represents the State the other the People, so that's one area where it is argued that the Representative system was there for a reason, and voting directly by the people defeats it because the House of Reps is for that and the Senators were originally designed to be selected differently on purpose.

And another area that I believe we have strayed and messed up:
* We are allowing Govt officials in legislative positions as well as Judges in Courts to decide matters of BELIEFS instead of respecting and protecting individual free choice.

You don't take your beliefs and put that up for a democratic vote by the public to mandate for everyone!

So that is messed up, and has always caused problems between groups fighting for different political beliefs. Instead of continuing that trend of oppressing the minority group by pushing a majority narrative, I believe we are overdue to address this area of "political beliefs" especially "political parties" and decide how to check this similar to checks on govt.

To be clear and concise please consider this, every even year We the People can change their representative in the H. of Rep. by their votes. Every six years we can send our Senator home, and every fourth year we can send the President home.

That seems to be Democratic, and the fact that the people can hire and fire our representatives in The Congress and White House is where the power remains, as long as the good well of our elected officials follow the rule of law set forth in COTUS.

This has never been of concern, until Trump took office.

It's not a concern now, except for Trump's interference in the left's moves towards totalitarianism.

 

[martybegan]

Q. Why attack CNN, why not respond rationally and consider the points I made with some thought and not echo Limbaugh.

American isnt a democracy,,,,

What are we than?

A Representative Federal Constitutional Republic.

 

[dblack]

It sounds like Wry is more concerned with the Constitutional separation of powers - a concern I share. Framing the thread as a discussion of democracy sort of invited derailment, as that's really another issue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A question for fans of democracy - how far should it go? The democratic socialists think that everything should be run democratically. Or, to be completely accurate, the quote from their website says they "believe that both economy and society should be run democratically". That sounds like everything to me, but feel free to quibble.

In my view, democracy is only useful, and only justified, when we really do need to force conformity. When we all need to decide on one course of action and abide by that decision. In all other cases, people should be free to go their own way.

A democracy of loons soon destroys a nation

America has brought a much wider democracy than the founders. Who set 21 as the min age to vote

And the founders would not let the unwise vote at all and we do

Why did we change

Democracy always brings the changes that destroys a nation

The voting age was reduced to 18, a result of the number of teenagers who were fighting in Vietnam. It was not a new situation, one day when on liberty I went to the Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, and by happenstance walked along a row of graves whose deaths occurred on the same day on the same atoll, and most were under the age of 21. There were more than two dozen graves of Marines who never voted, but lost their lives so we could vote.

Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery - Point Loma - San Diego, CA

The founders had much more under 18 fighting and dying but had enough wisdom to understand not to let the voters be too young with less experience to understand good and bad

True enough, and when they and their older comrades came down sick, the Dr. would bleed them.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

American isnt a democracy,,,,

It is at the local level...

And therein lies the distinction; America is not a democracy, in the sense that the power of the "American governmental body (i.e., Congress)" to govern the country is specifically circumscribed by the 10th Amendment--part of the Bill of Rights--the inclusion of which was insisted upon by the Anti-Federalists in order for the states to agree to ratify the Constitution. That preserves the rights of the states to legislate themselves, including by way of referendum, which is a form of legislation by pure democracy. And pure democracy, as the founders aptly recognized, is prone to the inherent danger of "tyranny by the majority," which is exactly what the founders (and the Anti-Federalists in particular) designed the Constitution as ratified to avoid on a federal (national) level, so that each state maintained its autonomy to self-legislate on the state level, and would not be controlled by the whims of the majority opinion of a national populus.

As Benjamin Franklin perspicaciously stated in response to a query by a state delegate as to what form of government we established while he was leaving Independence Hall following the close of the last day of deliberations at the Constitutional Convention of 1787—“A Republic, if you can keep it.” He and the founders would surely be rolling in their graves if they were privy to the fact that the much of the populus, and many of its representatives, do not understand that distinction, and the increasingly vocal calls by many on the left for legislative action at the federal level that would effectively dismantle our Republic in favor of the very form of government they so ardently intended to prevent. Sadly, such things are no longer part of the education curriculum these days. "If you can keep it" — a shrewd and prophetic warning if ever there was one.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes Wry Catcher a Democratic Republic
is not the same as a pure Democracy.

Thank you. We are of course a represented democracy, something not well understood by too many above.

youre the only one that seems confused,,,

Dear Wry Catcher
Since we are in agreement that America is a
Representative Democracy or
Democratic Republic
then is the confusion over the language/terms?

That "Representative Democracy" is still NOT
the same as saying "America is a Democracy"
America is DEMOCRATIC but within a Republic
or Representative system. We elect offices such
as Senators who vote on behalf of the states and people represented.

Where we have divisions is with changes such as
* Senators no longer being appointed by States but getting voted on by people similar to House Reps. There are arguments this defeats the purpose of Senators serving as a check on the House of Reps.
One represents the State the other the People, so that's one area where it is argued that the Representative system was there for a reason, and voting directly by the people defeats it because the House of Reps is for that and the Senators were originally designed to be selected differently on purpose.

And another area that I believe we have strayed and messed up:
* We are allowing Govt officials in legislative positions as well as Judges in Courts to decide matters of BELIEFS instead of respecting and protecting individual free choice.

You don't take your beliefs and put that up for a democratic vote by the public to mandate for everyone!

So that is messed up, and has always caused problems between groups fighting for different political beliefs. Instead of continuing that trend of oppressing the minority group by pushing a majority narrative, I believe we are overdue to address this area of "political beliefs" especially "political parties" and decide how to check this similar to checks on govt.

To be clear and concise please consider this, every even year We the People can change their representative in the H. of Rep. by their votes. Every six years we can send our Senator home, and every fourth year we can send the President home.

That seems to be Democratic, and the fact that the people can hire and fire our representatives in The Congress and White House is where the power remains, as long as the good well of our elected officials follow the rule of law set forth in COTUS.

This has never been of concern, until Trump took office.

Clinton and Bush also raised national concerns, not just Obama and then Trump.

Bush's overreaching of executive authority was contested as unconstitutional (or extra constitutionally by basing some decisions on UN policies outside Govt duty to the Constitution), but was generally "justified" and accepted anyway because of war powers and national security/defense issues that are seen as compelling govt interest.

What Obama and Pelosi did by overreaching Federal Authority with the ACA was also contested and did not carry the same "compelling interest" as with Bush claiming executive and federal authority because of militant attacks on US soil.

Wry Catcher I don't think it is fair to say this never was an issue before Trump. Even with Clinton, the fact that "prolife" advocates are not represented equally with "prochoice" leaders in office, this is an example of one issue where BELIEFS have been defended or imposed by "representatives" claiming the right by majority rule or judicial rule to "establish" policies biased toward the dominating sides' BELIEFS.

This is arguably against the Constitution for govt to establish or prohibit issues of BELIEFS, but that's how the current system has been used.

I noticed when Clinton took office in the 90's this battling to establish or defend political beliefs came out in the forefront, starting with ABORTION politics with Clinton, and then the division over the Patriot Act and War powers with Bush, then the Health Care and LGBT policies with Obama, and now with Trump the clashing between beliefs over the Wall and Immigration has come out as well.

Wry Catcher the issue is: even in a Representative Democracy or Democratic Republic, people DID NOT concede to govt the authority to DICTATE beliefs or creeds by "majority rule" or by "judicial rule".

There are limits in the Constitution to what we authority Govt officials to "represent" us on, and faith based beliefs is not one of them. However, I noticed starting with Clinton and the clash between prolife and prochoice beliefs, that these political beliefs started coming out because liberals/Democrats began pushing more publicly in OPPOSITION to "Christians and prolife".

So in creating a reactionary PUSH to establish opposing BELIEFS through Govt, the Rightwing had to start pushing equally "through govt" to DEFEND the Christian and Prolife beliefs under attack for political gain.

That's when I first sensed that political beliefs were leading to public battles that weren't going to stop until these conflicts are fully resolved.

In the meantime, it has skewed and manipulated the "system of representation" where political beliefs have been pushed into govt to the extent of VIOLATING Constitutional limits on govt representation and authority.

All presidents want to expand their power, Trump wants to in the extreme.

As for abortion, Clinton walked a middle road, he did not attack R v W, and supported abortion be few by supporting education and the use of contraception.

BTW, Clinton's support for both of the above tools is a much more effective means in reducing abortions than shamming women and putting road blocks to their access to healthcare. and, BTW2 the GOP does nothing to support the means to reduce abortions but won't do so, without abortion they will lose much of their base.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It sounds like Wry is more concerned with the Constitutional separation of powers - a concern I share. Framing the thread as a discussion of democracy sort of invited derailment, as that's really another issue.

The first phrase of COTUS begins, "We the People"; seems clear to me. As for the Separation of Powers, I completely agree. If Trump wins this battle, we all lose.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What ever happened to noblesse oblige: " the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged."

That perfectly sums up the motivation of the left. The poor proles need someone to do their thinking for them (because they might choose to think unapproved thoughts, tsk tsk), so we'll decide what they want.

Calling the nobility the left is an ignorant comment, herein wrapped in a Straw Man.