Democracy: Yes or No

[dblack]

The first phrase of COTUS begins, "We the People"; seems clear to me.

What does that mean to you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first phrase of COTUS begins, "We the People"; seems clear to me.

What does that mean to you?

Finally a clear, concise and thought provoking comment / question which put me back on my heels.

" As one historian noted, it was a "Convention of the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed.""

Mea culpa

No women, no slaves, no racial minorities, no Native American's and no laborers, just the elite.

 

[dblack]

The first phrase of COTUS begins, "We the People"; seems clear to me.

What does that mean to you?

Finally a clear, concise and thought provoking comment / question which put me back on my heels.

" As one historian noted, it was a "Convention of the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed.""

Mea culpa

No women, no slaves, no racial minorities, no Native American's and no laborers, just the elite.

How does that fit into the context of your post? What seems clear to you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first phrase of COTUS begins, "We the People"; seems clear to me.

What does that mean to you?

Finally a clear, concise and thought provoking comment / question which put me back on my heels.

" As one historian noted, it was a "Convention of the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed.""

Mea culpa

No women, no slaves, no racial minorities, no Native American's and no laborers, just the elite.

How does that fit into the context of your post? What seems clear to you?

Do you not know the meaning of Mea culpa?

The first phrase of the Preamble was hyperbole, it was not all of the people as one might infer; something I didn't question until you asked your question.

 

[dblack]

The first phrase of COTUS begins, "We the People"; seems clear to me.

What does that mean to you?

Finally a clear, concise and thought provoking comment / question which put me back on my heels.

" As one historian noted, it was a "Convention of the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed.""

Mea culpa

No women, no slaves, no racial minorities, no Native American's and no laborers, just the elite.

How does that fit into the context of your post? What seems clear to you?

Do you not know the meaning of Mea culpa?

The first phrase of the Preamble was hyperbole, it was not all of the people as one might infer; something I didn't question until you asked your question.

Uh. Ok, so then what did it mean to you when you typed it? What was clear initially? I'm trying to suss out what this "we the people" slogan means to modern liberals, not what it meant to the founders. They are clearly different things.

 

[rightwinger]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for supper

 

[Claudette]

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."

What a load of horse shit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

More food for thought:
Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

Nonsense.
Congress has its powers, the President has his.
The fact the President acts within his power to resist an action of Congress in no way presents a crisis to democracy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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."

What a load of horse shit.

What a load ^^^ of BULLSHIT

 

[daveman]

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.

Democrats say they want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare...yet they oppose any proposal to make it safer, and they want to eliminate any restrictions on it, including supporting letting newborns die on the table.

So they don't want it safe or rare. They just want it legal.

 

[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.

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

I neither asked nor expected your acknowledgement. Don't pretend it's required.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Yes and No GreenAndBlue
The states also have district representatives (and Electors)
which function as a "democratic republic" under a Governor
and legislature. Citizens do not vote directly on all matters,
but elect Representatives or Electors voting on behalf of constituents.

That's the reason for clarifying this system as
* Democratic republic
* Representative democracy

NOTE: there are other forms of democracy
* Direct Democracy
* Cooperative or Consensus based decision making

So just calling the states "democratic" doesn't specify enough
what type of system that means.

 

[BlindBoo]

they oppose any proposal to make it safer

You mean the clinic must have a complete surgical center? Or the doctors must have privileges at a nearby hospital?

they want to eliminate any restrictions on it

You mean late term abortions not requiring 3 doctors to approve but only 1?

including supporting letting newborns die on the table

The lie that lives. Please tell me which state allows newborns to be neglected until they die? Where is that not a crime? Does any state have pending legislation that allows it?

 

[daveman]

they oppose any proposal to make it safer

You mean the clinic must have a complete surgical center? Or the doctors must have privileges at a nearby hospital?

they want to eliminate any restrictions on it

You mean late term abortions not requiring 3 doctors to approve but only 1?

Yes. Like I said, we must not make abortion safer.

including supporting letting newborns die on the table

The lie that lives. Please tell me which state allows newborns to be neglected until they die? Where is that not a crime? Does any state have pending legislation that allows it?

I see no need to defend a claim I did not make.

Meanwhile in reality, 183 Democrats voted in opposition of H.R.4712 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Oh, look -- Democrats who want babies born alive after a botched abortion to die on the table. You know, just like I said.

There is absolutely no way to make that look like a positive thing.

 

[BlindBoo]

they oppose any proposal to make it safer

You mean the clinic must have a complete surgical center? Or the doctors must have privileges at a nearby hospital?

they want to eliminate any restrictions on it

You mean late term abortions not requiring 3 doctors to approve but only 1?

Yes. Like I said, we must not make abortion safer.

including supporting letting newborns die on the table

The lie that lives. Please tell me which state allows newborns to be neglected until they die? Where is that not a crime? Does any state have pending legislation that allows it?

I see no need to defend a claim I did not make.

Meanwhile in reality, 183 Democrats voted in opposition of H.R.4712 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Oh, look -- Democrats who want babies born alive after a botched abortion to die on the table. You know, just like I said.

There is absolutely no way to make that look like a positive thing.

It is against the law in every state to " let... newborns die on the table" Not one state allows it. Feel free to name the democrat legislators who support your claim.

In 2002, the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” easily passed Congress on a voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. It's still in effect and is the law of the land.

 

[Wry Catcher]

More food for thought:
Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

Nonsense.
Congress has its powers, the President has his.
The fact the President acts within his power to resist an action of Congress in no way presents a crisis to democracy.

This post ^^^ is an opinion based on ignorance. No president has the power to vacate service and/or quash subpoenas. In fact what Trump has done is obstruct justice, once again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

More food for thought:
Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

Nonsense.
Congress has its powers, the President has his.
The fact the President acts within his power to resist an action of Congress in no way presents a crisis to democracy.

No president has the power to vacate service and/or quash subpoenas. In fact what Trump has done is obstruct justice, once again.

This post ^^^ is an opinion based on ignorance.

 

[daveman]

they oppose any proposal to make it safer

You mean the clinic must have a complete surgical center? Or the doctors must have privileges at a nearby hospital?

they want to eliminate any restrictions on it

You mean late term abortions not requiring 3 doctors to approve but only 1?

Yes. Like I said, we must not make abortion safer.

including supporting letting newborns die on the table

The lie that lives. Please tell me which state allows newborns to be neglected until they die? Where is that not a crime? Does any state have pending legislation that allows it?

I see no need to defend a claim I did not make.

Meanwhile in reality, 183 Democrats voted in opposition of H.R.4712 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Oh, look -- Democrats who want babies born alive after a botched abortion to die on the table. You know, just like I said.

There is absolutely no way to make that look like a positive thing.

It is against the law in every state to " let... newborns die on the table" Not one state allows it. Feel free to name the democrat legislators who support your claim.

In 2002, the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” easily passed Congress on a voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. It's still in effect and is the law of the land.

That's good. But it doesn't refute my claim in the least. 183 Democrats voted against requiring medical care for babies born after botched abortions, preferring instead they be left to die.

 

[Wry Catcher]

More food for thought:
Donald Trump's feud with Congress puts American democracy on the brink - CNNPolitics

Nonsense.
Congress has its powers, the President has his.
The fact the President acts within his power to resist an action of Congress in no way presents a crisis to democracy.

No president has the power to vacate service and/or quash subpoenas. In fact what Trump has done is obstruct justice, once again.

This post ^^^ is an opinion based on ignorance.

Read this [ Art. II, sec 2 ]:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Do you see anywhere in Sec. 2 which gives the president the power to vacate service or quash a subpoena?

 

[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.

I neither asked nor expected your acknowledgement. Don't pretend it's required.

I don't, the willfully ignorant will remain willfully ignorant.