Is the US a democracy?

[Intense]

OK OUR form of a Republic is a Democracy.

do you like that better?

The ONLY republican we were discussing is our own which is a Democracy

Democratic Republic. Our Constitution is Federalist. Again, a Specific breakdown and Decentralization of Power to guard against Tyranny.

 

[Dragon]

Democratic Republic.

Let me make sure I understand you here, Intense. Did you just acknowledge that the U.S. is a democratic republic?

If so, then you agree that we are a democracy.

 

[Harry Dresden]

then they are wrong you fool.

EVERY dictionary and encyclopedia as well as all government books agree with me because its the damned definition of the term.

A republic is a type of Democracy

then why did you title your thread.....IS THE US A DEMOCRACY?.....maybe you should go back and re-title it to.....IS THE US A TYPE OF DEMOCRACY?.....you have been back pedaling ever since you started this thread....

we are a democracy and there is No back peddling except by the right here.

we are a type of Democracy.....not A Democracy as you insisted in the beginning of your thread....there are different types of Democracies.....OUR Govt,the USA is a Federal Constitutional Republic....it may have Democratic elements in it....but it is not just a DEMOCRACY.....as your thread title implies.....

 

[Ernie S.]

A republic is a type of democracy.

its a cold hard fact.

Why do you fight this fact?

Is The Peoples' Republic of China a Democracy? Is the Democratic Peoples' Republic of North Korea a Democracy? Was The Soviet Socialist Republic a Democracy?
Do you have an IQ of > 5?

 

[Dragon]

Is The Peoples' Republic of China a Democracy?

No, it's a non-democratic republic.

Is the Democratic Peoples' Republic of North Korea a Democracy?

No, in effect it's a monarchy.

Was The Soviet Socialist Republic a Democracy?

No, like China, it was a non-democratic republic.

The real question is why you folks who insist we're a "republic, not a democracy" want us to be like China or the USSR.

 

[Harry Dresden]

OK OUR form of a Republic is a Democracy.

do you like that better?

The ONLY republic we were discussing is our own which is a Democracy

no....it should be our form of a Republic is a TYPE of Democracy....

 

[Truthmatters]

Our republic is a form of democracy.

Calling the US a democracy is perfectly correct.

why does the right deny this fact?

 

[Intense]

Democratic Republic.

Let me make sure I understand you here, Intense. Did you just acknowledge that the U.S. is a democratic republic?

If so, then you agree that we are a democracy.

From the Start I acknowledge that We are Rooted in Democratic Principle, but your question is not that simple.

Are We a Pure Democracy? No. Not at all.
We are a Federalist Constitutional Republic. We are a Hybrid. No Country was Governed like Us before, few since. The Recognition of Unalienable Right's has nothing to do with Majority Rule, yet it touches and effects Each and Every one of us in one way or another. Establishment and Administration of Justice are maintained through Proxy, not Majority Rule. Most of the function of Government, at best, is indirectly influenced by the will of the Majority. At most, it is a result of compromise that we rarely know the details of. To claim that we are easily played and manipulated, is an understatement.

Remember what Thoreau said about Government?


I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.................

[2] This American government — what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber,(3) would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

[3] But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men,(4) I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

[4] After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1

 

[Harry Dresden]

Is The Peoples' Republic of China a Democracy?

No, it's a non-democratic republic.

Is the Democratic Peoples' Republic of North Korea a Democracy?

No, in effect it's a monarchy.

Was The Soviet Socialist Republic a Democracy?

No, like China, it was a non-democratic republic.

The real question is why you folks who insist we're a "republic, not a democracy" want us to be like China or the USSR.

China is a Communist State Government......
N.Korea was an Authoritarian socialist; one-man dictatorship.....it may be different now...

 

[Intense]

[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?

No. At best, Government adapts to circumstance, taking on needed characteristics, some Democratic, some not.

 

[Truthmatters]

The US government is a Democracy

 

[Truthmatters]

The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson

 

[Ernie S.]

Is The Peoples' Republic of China a Democracy?

No, it's a non-democratic republic.

Is the Democratic Peoples' Republic of North Korea a Democracy?

No, in effect it's a monarchy.

Was The Soviet Socialist Republic a Democracy?

No, like China, it was a non-democratic republic.

The real question is why you folks who insist we're a "republic, not a democracy" want us to be like China or the USSR.

I don't deny that our form of government is a Democracy. The problem I have is that "Democracy" is not descriptive enough.
Calling a representative republic a Democracy is like calling baseball a game. Football is a game too but both are not played by the same rules.

 

[Ernie S.]

The US government is a Democracy

You are an idiot, but calling you a retarded, lying sack of shit is more accurate. See how that works now?

 

[Truthmatters]

what will lying about it gain for you?

 

[Truthmatters]

Is The Peoples' Republic of China a Democracy?

No, it's a non-democratic republic.



No, in effect it's a monarchy.

Was The Soviet Socialist Republic a Democracy?

No, like China, it was a non-democratic republic.

The real question is why you folks who insist we're a "republic, not a democracy" want us to be like China or the USSR.

I don't deny that our form of government is a Democracy. The problem I have is that "Democracy" is not descriptive enough.
Calling a representative republic a Democracy is like calling baseball a game. Football is a game too but both are not played by the same rules.

what is a representative republic?

 

[Truthmatters]

50% + 1 of what the People want does not set Government Policy. We are a Representative Republic.

What is a representative republic


Answer:

Improve


Answer

A republic is representative in some form by nature, so "representative republic" is a redundant term that is no more meaningful than the word "republic".


Read more: What is a representative republic

your so very wrong

 

[Intense]

50% + 1 of what the People want does not set Government Policy. We are a Representative Republic.

What is a representative republic


Answer:

Improve


Answer

A republic is representative in some form by nature, so "representative republic" is a redundant term that is no more meaningful than the word "republic".


Read more: What is a representative republic

your so very wrong

I do understand what you are trying to say TM. It's just too general and basic, like the first step on a long journey. Tell me what you interpret as me being wrong about. Elaborate.

 

[Ernie S.]

No, it's a non-democratic republic.



No, in effect it's a monarchy.



No, like China, it was a non-democratic republic.

The real question is why you folks who insist we're a "republic, not a democracy" want us to be like China or the USSR.

I don't deny that our form of government is a Democracy. The problem I have is that "Democracy" is not descriptive enough.
Calling a representative republic a Democracy is like calling baseball a game. Football is a game too but both are not played by the same rules.

what is a representative republic?

A form of Democracy, just as baseball is a form of game.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm not going to attempt to fix your misconception... You are wanting it to say one thing and ignoring what it actually says....

Mike

My misconception? Now that's a joke. You think the first amendment is only talking about congress, It's not. As with the supreme court ruling in Heller versus D.C. no state law, or city ordnance can superseded the Constitution. What do you think the tenth amendment is talking about?

Question, Since you think the first amendment is only dictating to congress, if the president writes an executive order that his religion must be worshiped, and only his would that be Constitutional?

The first Amendment specifies congress. How do I "think it" when it says it.. I'll take these one at a time to try and fix your premises.

The Tenth Amendment does not restrict the states, it empowers them. It says that in any case that the Constitution does not grant a power to the federal government or restrict an authority from the states that it is a power left to the states or the people respectively. That doesn't place a restriction on the states, it grants them domain over everything that is not enumerated in the Constitution. In Article 1 section 10 you find most of the restrictions placed on the states. Coincidentally, Madison made a strong push (and was defeated) to include something simliar to the 1st amendment in Article 1 Section 10. In fact there is some evidence (based on Jefferson's notes from the convention) that the First Amendment was a kind of compromise. At the time that the First amendment was ratified 3 of the 13 states had state religions. They did not renounce them, in fact some of them carried on until almost 1850. Also, 2 states had manditory tithing and continued to have it until after 1800. Why all of this discussion about religion? Because the first amendment did not apply to the states.

Heller v. DC? Did you read the opinion or did you just "wiki" 2nd Amendment? You should have looked at McDonald v. Chicago, you know since Chicago doesn't fall directly under federal authority (unlike DC). Heller v. DC explicitly did not consider what you assert it did. Even with all of that considered, the second amendment does not specify a level of government. It says shall not be infringed. That would be one of those things that is prohibited to the states (the Tenth amendment tells you that this is not a power granted to the states).

Now about the executive order. I must stress the need for you to read more. Do your own research and look at original documents. I'm not right because I think I'm right, I'm right because my supporting evidence says so. You are dealing in hypotheticals, not facts. But lets look at some of those. The POTUS cannot issue an executive order "requireing you to worship a religion". To understand why you must first read Article II of the Constitution. The whole thing... The President is charged with "faithully executing the laws"... In order for him to issue an executive order he must be granted statutory authority by Congress. In order for that to happen Congress must have the the authority in the first place. Since the First Amendment prohibits them from doing such a thing they do not have the authority.

Let us take even the most lenient interpretation of the "Executive order" authority. That would be in the case of war. Usually there is an inclusion about statutory authority of the President in a declaration of war. But what if that is not the case? Read about the Korean war. Truman tried to seize all of the steel mills in the country. That was shot down at the SCOTUS (1952 or 3) because Truman had not been granted statutory authority to do something like that.

I encourage you to do more reading. It isn't that you don't care, it is that you just haven't read enough to this point. If I can help clear anything else up let me know.


Mike

Quick question
Can the president issue an executive order that people must worship his religion?

The Tenth Amendment does not restrict the states, it empowers them.

I never said it didn't empower the states. I said certain issues are given to the federal government by the states. The states cannot restrict rights that go beyond the U.S. Constitution. The states cannot forbid freedom to speak out against them the states cannot ban firearms, the sates cannot house national guard troops in the homes of a civilian.