Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is the US a democracy?
- Thread starter Truthmatters
- Start date
Robert_Stephens
Rookie
- Banned
- #382
Yes, I can. It was the first time, in time, that the people would, by vote, decide how they would be governed, not from top down, but decided by the vote of everyman.
A major difference than anything known before.
To further this, the Bill of Rights were introduced to insure the liberties of the so governed. It was an exceptional idea.
And so far, it works quite well.
Hope that is better.
Robert
A major difference than anything known before.
To further this, the Bill of Rights were introduced to insure the liberties of the so governed. It was an exceptional idea.
And so far, it works quite well.
Hope that is better.
Robert
And your reading to much into a simple solution. And no a republic is not a democracy.A Republic assured the right of all to be protected, against the tyranny of the Democratic process.
No. The Bill of Rights does that. The Bill of Rights is one thing. A republican form of government is another. Don't confuse the two.
Article 4 Section 4 states it clearly and makes it so that all is equal across the spectrum.
You're reading that "equal access" thing into it. It's not there. All it says is that the states are guaranteed a republican form of government. It does not say "non-democratic." A republic may be a democracy as well.
An example of a Republican Form of Government:
An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.
Republic vs. Democracy
An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.
Republic vs. Democracy
Last edited:
Yes, I can. It was the first time, in time, that the people would, by vote, decide how they would be governed, not from top down, but decided by the vote of everyman.
A major difference than anything known before.
To further this, the Bill of Rights were introduced to insure the liberties of the so governed. It was an exceptional idea.
And so far, it works quite well.
Hope that is better.
Robert
Roman Republic.
The BoR was not really introduced to insure the liberties, it was to restrict the Government. Big difference. An individual cannot "violate" your right to the freedom of speech. You don't have a right to the freedom of speech. You have a right to be free of a congress that will make laws against your free speech. Doesn't apply to my living room.
That's why I had a problem with the term responsibilties. The government isn't responsible for your right to free speech, it is required to respect it.
Mike
Yes, I can. It was the first time, in time, that the people would, by vote, decide how they would be governed, not from top down, but decided by the vote of everyman.
A major difference than anything known before.
To further this, the Bill of Rights were introduced to insure the liberties of the so governed. It was an exceptional idea.
And so far, it works quite well.
Hope that is better.
Robert
Roman Republic.
The BoR was not really introduced to insure the liberties, it was to restrict the Government. Big difference. An individual cannot "violate" your right to the freedom of speech. You don't have a right to the freedom of speech. You have a right to be free of a congress that will make laws against your free speech. Doesn't apply to my living room.
That's why I had a problem with the term responsibilties. The government isn't responsible for your right to free speech, it is required to respect it.
Mike
The government cannot restrict your speech against itself no matter where you are. Nor can any person restrict your speech
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeVrzrmgitQ]Trace Adkins RAW- First Amendment - YouTube[/ame]
Liability
Locked Account.
Yes, I can. It was the first time, in time, that the people would, by vote, decide how they would be governed, not from top down, but decided by the vote of everyman.
A major difference than anything known before.
To further this, the Bill of Rights were introduced to insure the liberties of the so governed. It was an exceptional idea.
And so far, it works quite well.
Hope that is better.
Robert
Roman Republic.
The BoR was not really introduced to insure the liberties, it was to restrict the Government. Big difference. An individual cannot "violate" your right to the freedom of speech. You don't have a right to the freedom of speech. You have a right to be free of a congress that will make laws against your free speech. Doesn't apply to my living room.
That's why I had a problem with the term responsibilties. The government isn't responsible for your right to free speech, it is required to respect it.
Mike
The government cannot restrict your speech against itself no matter where you are. Nor can any person restrict your speech
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeVrzrmgitQ]Trace Adkins RAW- First Amendment - YouTube[/ame]
I believe it IS perfectly legal to restrict the speech of others under SOME circumstances.
Like, for example, the TOS of this Board does explicitly advise that some things may not be posted.
They have every legal right to restrict our speech on that basis.
The cool part is, that for the most part, they don't.
Yes, I can. It was the first time, in time, that the people would, by vote, decide how they would be governed, not from top down, but decided by the vote of everyman.
A major difference than anything known before.
To further this, the Bill of Rights were introduced to insure the liberties of the so governed. It was an exceptional idea.
And so far, it works quite well.
Hope that is better.
Robert
Roman Republic.
The BoR was not really introduced to insure the liberties, it was to restrict the Government. Big difference. An individual cannot "violate" your right to the freedom of speech. You don't have a right to the freedom of speech. You have a right to be free of a congress that will make laws against your free speech. Doesn't apply to my living room.
That's why I had a problem with the term responsibilties. The government isn't responsible for your right to free speech, it is required to respect it.
Mike
The government cannot restrict your speech against itself no matter where you are. Nor can any person restrict your speech
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeVrzrmgitQ]Trace Adkins RAW- First Amendment - YouTube[/ame]
Show me where you find that in the Constitution.
Come into my living room and try to say what you like. If I disagree I will tell you so. If I disagree vehemently I will tell you to be silent. If you insist on it I will either silence you or remove you from the living room. Your "first amendment right" is not extended to my living room. You are not permitted to say anything you wish anywhere you wish. Congress is not allowed to make a law restricting your freedom of speech, that is what the first amendment says. Maybe you can make the arugment that the 14th amendment extends that to the states.
Mike
Roman Republic.
The BoR was not really introduced to insure the liberties, it was to restrict the Government. Big difference. An individual cannot "violate" your right to the freedom of speech. You don't have a right to the freedom of speech. You have a right to be free of a congress that will make laws against your free speech. Doesn't apply to my living room.
That's why I had a problem with the term responsibilties. The government isn't responsible for your right to free speech, it is required to respect it.
Mike
The government cannot restrict your speech against itself no matter where you are. Nor can any person restrict your speech
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeVrzrmgitQ]Trace Adkins RAW- First Amendment - YouTube[/ame]
I believe it IS perfectly legal to restrict the speech of others under SOME circumstances.
Like, for example, the TOS of this Board does explicitly advise that some things may not be posted.
They have every legal right to restrict our speech on that basis.
The cool part is, that for the most part, they don't.
OK discussion boards have rules that you either agree with or disagree with if you agree to those rules you are allowed membership, if you don't agree with them you aren't. If you violate those rules your membership can be terminated., The first amendment is under the control of the administrator of the website. Which is a totally different thing.
Roman Republic.
The BoR was not really introduced to insure the liberties, it was to restrict the Government. Big difference. An individual cannot "violate" your right to the freedom of speech. You don't have a right to the freedom of speech. You have a right to be free of a congress that will make laws against your free speech. Doesn't apply to my living room.
That's why I had a problem with the term responsibilties. The government isn't responsible for your right to free speech, it is required to respect it.
Mike
The government cannot restrict your speech against itself no matter where you are. Nor can any person restrict your speech
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeVrzrmgitQ]Trace Adkins RAW- First Amendment - YouTube[/ame]
Show me where you find that in the Constitution.
Come into my living room and try to say what you like. If I disagree I will tell you so. If I disagree vehemently I will tell you to be silent. If you insist on it I will either silence you or remove you from the living room. Your "first amendment right" is not extended to my living room. You are not permitted to say anything you wish anywhere you wish. Congress is not allowed to make a law restricting your freedom of speech, that is what the first amendment says. Maybe you can make the arugment that the 14th amendment extends that to the states.
Mike
The key word's are " in public" Your right to speak freely against the government cannot be restricted by the government. It only applies to the citizen against/ or for the government. You are not protected by to first amendment to speak out against a citizen, because that citizen might just kick your ass.
The government cannot restrict your speech against itself no matter where you are. Nor can any person restrict your speech
Trace Adkins RAW- First Amendment - YouTube
Show me where you find that in the Constitution.
Come into my living room and try to say what you like. If I disagree I will tell you so. If I disagree vehemently I will tell you to be silent. If you insist on it I will either silence you or remove you from the living room. Your "first amendment right" is not extended to my living room. You are not permitted to say anything you wish anywhere you wish. Congress is not allowed to make a law restricting your freedom of speech, that is what the first amendment says. Maybe you can make the arugment that the 14th amendment extends that to the states.
Mike
The key word's are " in public" Your right to speak freely against the government cannot be restricted by the government. It only applies to the citizen against/ or for the government. You are not protected by to first amendment to speak out against a citizen, because that citizen might just kick your ass.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So if I am walking with my boss in public and I say something he doesn't like, then he threatens to fire me. He has stifled my right to freedom of speech in public hasn't he?
Can Congress pass a law that makes it illegal to speak badly against Muhammad?
The restriction is very simple. Congress cannot make a law which infringes on your right to speak freely. Your state can do it, (14th amendment not withstanding), your city can do it, your boss can do it... the only thing restricted from such an ability is congress.
Mike
Show me where you find that in the Constitution.
Come into my living room and try to say what you like. If I disagree I will tell you so. If I disagree vehemently I will tell you to be silent. If you insist on it I will either silence you or remove you from the living room. Your "first amendment right" is not extended to my living room. You are not permitted to say anything you wish anywhere you wish. Congress is not allowed to make a law restricting your freedom of speech, that is what the first amendment says. Maybe you can make the arugment that the 14th amendment extends that to the states.
Mike
The key word's are " in public" Your right to speak freely against the government cannot be restricted by the government. It only applies to the citizen against/ or for the government. You are not protected by to first amendment to speak out against a citizen, because that citizen might just kick your ass.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So if I am walking with my boss in public and I say something he doesn't like, then he threatens to fire me. He has stifled my right to freedom of speech in public hasn't he?
Can Congress pass a law that makes it illegal to speak badly against Muhammad?
The restriction is very simple. Congress cannot make a law which infringes on your right to speak freely. Your state can do it, (14th amendment not withstanding), your city can do it, your boss can do it... the only thing restricted from such an ability is congress.
Mike
So if I am walking with my boss in public and I say something he doesn't like, then he threatens to fire me. He has stifled my right to freedom of speech in public hasn't he?
Are you on his time?
Can Congress pass a law that makes it illegal to speak badly against Muhammad?
No of course not. Why do you ask? Do you think congress can?
The restriction is very simple. Congress cannot make a law which infringes on your right to speak freely. Your state can do it, (14th amendment not withstanding), your city can do it, your boss can do it... the only thing restricted from such an ability is congress.
As with the second amendment the state has no say it can not subvert the constitution.
No.The key word's are " in public" Your right to speak freely against the government cannot be restricted by the government. It only applies to the citizen against/ or for the government. You are not protected by to first amendment to speak out against a citizen, because that citizen might just kick your ass.
So if I am walking with my boss in public and I say something he doesn't like, then he threatens to fire me. He has stifled my right to freedom of speech in public hasn't he?
Can Congress pass a law that makes it illegal to speak badly against Muhammad?
The restriction is very simple. Congress cannot make a law which infringes on your right to speak freely. Your state can do it, (14th amendment not withstanding), your city can do it, your boss can do it... the only thing restricted from such an ability is congress.
Mike
Are you on his time?
No. You said it only applied to speaking against the Government.Can Congress pass a law that makes it illegal to speak badly against Muhammad?
No of course not. Why do you ask? Do you think congress can?
The first Amendment restricts itself to congress.The restriction is very simple. Congress cannot make a law which infringes on your right to speak freely. Your state can do it, (14th amendment not withstanding), your city can do it, your boss can do it... the only thing restricted from such an ability is congress.
As with the second amendment the state has no say it can not subvert the constitution.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The first amendment begins with Congress shall create no law... It is exclusive to Congress unlike the second amendment which is not exclusive to any level.
Mike
No.So if I am walking with my boss in public and I say something he doesn't like, then he threatens to fire me. He has stifled my right to freedom of speech in public hasn't he?
Can Congress pass a law that makes it illegal to speak badly against Muhammad?
The restriction is very simple. Congress cannot make a law which infringes on your right to speak freely. Your state can do it, (14th amendment not withstanding), your city can do it, your boss can do it... the only thing restricted from such an ability is congress.
Mike
Are you on his time?
No. You said it only applied to speaking against the Government.
The first Amendment restricts itself to congress.As with the second amendment the state has no say it can not subvert the constitution.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The first amendment begins with Congress shall create no law... It is exclusive to Congress unlike the second amendment which is not exclusive to any level.
Mike
No. You said it only applied to speaking against the Government.
I am confused what are you trying to say? You made it a government issue when you introduced the government. The government cannot restrict your right to free speech, against it self. You are not protected by the first amendment against someone else. When you introduce the government you as you did then it becomes a violation.
If you are not on the bosses time he fires you for exercising your first amendment right you can sue him.
As for the states to answer your question look to the tenth amendment. If something has not been delegated to the federal government then the states have control over it. Is the first amendment delegated to the federal government?
Last edited:
No.Are you on his time?
No. You said it only applied to speaking against the Government.
The first Amendment restricts itself to congress.
The first amendment begins with Congress shall create no law... It is exclusive to Congress unlike the second amendment which is not exclusive to any level.
Mike
No. You said it only applied to speaking against the Government.
I am confused what are you trying to say? You made it a government issue when you introduced the government. The government cannot restrict your right to free speech, against it self. You are not protected by the first amendment against someone else. When you introduce the government you as you did then it becomes a violation.
If you are not on the bosses time he fires you for exercising your first amendment right you can sue him.
As for the states to answer your question look to the tenth amendment. If something has not been delegated to the federal government then the states have control over it. Is the first amendment delegated to the federal government?
I'm in a rush but I will answer the last first before I have to go.
You are reading it wrong. The first amendment is not a power delegated to the federal government, it is one that is explicitly prohibited from writing such a law.
Mike
No.
No. You said it only applied to speaking against the Government.
The first Amendment restricts itself to congress.
The first amendment begins with Congress shall create no law... It is exclusive to Congress unlike the second amendment which is not exclusive to any level.
Mike
No. You said it only applied to speaking against the Government.
I am confused what are you trying to say? You made it a government issue when you introduced the government. The government cannot restrict your right to free speech, against it self. You are not protected by the first amendment against someone else. When you introduce the government you as you did then it becomes a violation.
If you are not on the bosses time he fires you for exercising your first amendment right you can sue him.
As for the states to answer your question look to the tenth amendment. If something has not been delegated to the federal government then the states have control over it. Is the first amendment delegated to the federal government?
I'm in a rush but I will answer the last first before I have to go.
You are reading it wrong. The first amendment is not a power delegated to the federal government, it is one that is explicitly prohibited from writing such a law.
Mike
OH but yes it is delegated to the federal government. Because it is the federal government's job to ensure that our right's are protected. As with the second amendment.
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
Why do you keep refusing all the dictionary and encylcopedia defintions ?
Why is it so important to the right to hate the word democracy?
What do you think you will gain from such stupidity?
Why are you refusing to admit the United States is not a democracy??
ThisNation.com--Is the United States a democracy?
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus RepublicIt is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
Dang TM, open your mind. You can wish it all you want but it isn't so. How about you look up the definition of Republic:
republic
[ri-puhb-lik]   Origin
re·pub·lic
   [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com
There are only three democracies in the western world...using your defintion
I am confused what are you trying to say? You made it a government issue when you introduced the government. The government cannot restrict your right to free speech, against it self. You are not protected by the first amendment against someone else. When you introduce the government you as you did then it becomes a violation.
If you are not on the bosses time he fires you for exercising your first amendment right you can sue him.
As for the states to answer your question look to the tenth amendment. If something has not been delegated to the federal government then the states have control over it. Is the first amendment delegated to the federal government?
I'm in a rush but I will answer the last first before I have to go.
You are reading it wrong. The first amendment is not a power delegated to the federal government, it is one that is explicitly prohibited from writing such a law.
Mike
OH but yes it is delegated to the federal government. Because it is the federal government's job to ensure that our right's are protected. As with the second amendment.
Quote the first amendment. Highlight what part is delegating a power. You do not delegate restrictions. If the first amendment were meant to be an empowering statement then it would begin like article 1 section 8 or it would include a statement such as the last section of the 13th amendment: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It lacks such a statement because the federal government is not granted any such authority through the first amendment. Congress is prohibited from making a law. Nothing more.
Mike
I'm in a rush but I will answer the last first before I have to go.
You are reading it wrong. The first amendment is not a power delegated to the federal government, it is one that is explicitly prohibited from writing such a law.
Mike
OH but yes it is delegated to the federal government. Because it is the federal government's job to ensure that our right's are protected. As with the second amendment.
Quote the first amendment. Highlight what part is delegating a power. You do not delegate restrictions. If the first amendment were meant to be an empowering statement then it would begin like article 1 section 8 or it would include a statement such as the last section of the 13th amendment: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It lacks such a statement because the federal government is not granted any such authority through the first amendment. Congress is prohibited from making a law. Nothing more.
Mike
I said look at the tenth amendment. But you did not do that did you?
Here you go
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 193
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 273
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8513
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-