Is the US a democracy?

[thereisnospoon]

once again.

A republic is a TYPE of Democracy.

All the world except cons know this fact

Ah..Ms Room Temperature IQ spews bullshit..Again..
Hey Princess Dip Shit....You insisted the USA is a "democracy"....Now you try to escape the stupidity of that earlier comment by stating " A republic is a TYPE of democracy"....
How many times must you be figuratively knocked on your ass before you realize you should just stay down?

 

[thereisnospoon]

there is NO such thing as a representative republic, its a redundant phrase

Yeah....Ok genius.

 

[Texanmike]

Sorry about the quotes. Im typing on my phone.

You make claims about what states can and cannot do. Where do you find them in the Constitution? It seems like you think it should work o e wah and so you are going to read what you want.

Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry about the quotes. Im typing on my phone.

You make claims about what states can and cannot do. Where do you find them in the Constitution? It seems like you think it should work o e wah and so you are going to read what you want.

Mike

The states cannot have a state sponsored religion, they cannot limit protest against the government, they cannot shut down the press. The states cannot ban firearms, the states cannot force citizens to house soldier, The states cannot strip you of your right's without due process, well scratch that since the NDAA 2012 no one has due process. The president cannot use executive orders to make a certain religion state supported.

 

[Intense]

there is NO such thing as a representative republic, its a redundant phrase

Yeah....Ok genius.

From that Perspective "Democratic Republic" is redundant too.

 

[Texanmike]

Sorry about the quotes. Im typing on my phone.

You make claims about what states can and cannot do. Where do you find them in the Constitution? It seems like you think it should work o e wah and so you are going to read what you want.

Mike

The states cannot have a state sponsored religion, they cannot limit protest against the government, they cannot shut down the press. The states cannot ban firearms, the states cannot force citizens to house soldier, The states cannot strip you of your right's without due process, well scratch that since the NDAA 2012 no one has due process. The president cannot use executive orders to make a certain religion state supported.

But what is your reference? Where in the constitution do you find this? You are starting g to scare me. You have no reference other than your own perspective... that's dangerous.

Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry about the quotes. Im typing on my phone.

You make claims about what states can and cannot do. Where do you find them in the Constitution? It seems like you think it should work o e wah and so you are going to read what you want.

Mike

The states cannot have a state sponsored religion, they cannot limit protest against the government, they cannot shut down the press. The states cannot ban firearms, the states cannot force citizens to house soldier, The states cannot strip you of your right's without due process, well scratch that since the NDAA 2012 no one has due process. The president cannot use executive orders to make a certain religion state supported.

But what is your reference? Where in the constitution do you find this? You are starting g to scare me. You have no reference other than your own perspective... that's dangerous.

Mike

And you are starting to sound like a liberal.

Once Again the tenth amendment gives the states the authority that has not been given to the federal government.

 

[Texanmike]

The states cannot have a state sponsored religion, they cannot limit protest against the government, they cannot shut down the press. The states cannot ban firearms, the states cannot force citizens to house soldier, The states cannot strip you of your right's without due process, well scratch that since the NDAA 2012 no one has due process. The president cannot use executive orders to make a certain religion state supported.

But what is your reference? Where in the constitution do you find this? You are starting g to scare me. You have no reference other than your own perspective... that's dangerous.

Mike

And you are starting to sound like a liberal.

Once Again the tenth amendment gives the states the authority that has not been given to the federal government.

So then, I ask you again. What in the Constitution applies the first amendment to the states? The tenth amendment does not. The tenth amendment does not restrict the states. It says that anything that federal government doesn't have control over is granted to the states or to the people. The federal government is clearly not given any authority over religion, freedom of speech or the press. That authority is taken from the federal government. Show me where in the hell you find that a power not granted to the federal government is by default not granted to the states. That is exactly the opposite of what the Tenth Amendment says.

Finally, if states are not allowed to respect the establishment of religion then why did three of them have state religions at the time of the ratification and keep it until as late as almost 1850? How do you refute that?



Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But what is your reference? Where in the constitution do you find this? You are starting g to scare me. You have no reference other than your own perspective... that's dangerous.

Mike

And you are starting to sound like a liberal.

Once Again the tenth amendment gives the states the authority that has not been given to the federal government.

So then, I ask you again. What in the Constitution applies the first amendment to the states? The tenth amendment does not. The tenth amendment does not restrict the states. It says that anything that federal government doesn't have control over is granted to the states or to the people. The federal government is clearly not given any authority over religion, freedom of speech or the press. That authority is taken from the federal government. Show me where in the hell you find that a power not granted to the federal government is by default not granted to the states. That is exactly the opposite of what the Tenth Amendment says.

Finally, if states are not allowed to respect the establishment of religion then why did three of them have state religions at the time of the ratification and keep it until as late as almost 1850? How do you refute that?



Mike

The 14th amendment.

 

[Texanmike]

And you are starting to sound like a liberal.

Once Again the tenth amendment gives the states the authority that has not been given to the federal government.

So then, I ask you again. What in the Constitution applies the first amendment to the states? The tenth amendment does not. The tenth amendment does not restrict the states. It says that anything that federal government doesn't have control over is granted to the states or to the people. The federal government is clearly not given any authority over religion, freedom of speech or the press. That authority is taken from the federal government. Show me where in the hell you find that a power not granted to the federal government is by default not granted to the states. That is exactly the opposite of what the Tenth Amendment says.

Finally, if states are not allowed to respect the establishment of religion then why did three of them have state religions at the time of the ratification and keep it until as late as almost 1850? How do you refute that?



Mike

The 14th amendment.

Care to explain the origination of the "incorporation doctrine"? Go back and look and you will find it to be ludicrous, dangerous and vile. The 14th amendment only does so by some perverse case law acrobatics.

Mike

 

[thereisnospoon]

But what is your reference? Where in the constitution do you find this? You are starting g to scare me. You have no reference other than your own perspective... that's dangerous.

Mike

And you are starting to sound like a liberal.

Once Again the tenth amendment gives the states the authority that has not been given to the federal government.

So then, I ask you again. What in the Constitution applies the first amendment to the states? The tenth amendment does not. The tenth amendment does not restrict the states. It says that anything that federal government doesn't have control over is granted to the states or to the people. The federal government is clearly not given any authority over religion, freedom of speech or the press. That authority is taken from the federal government. Show me where in the hell you find that a power not granted to the federal government is by default not granted to the states. That is exactly the opposite of what the Tenth Amendment says.

Finally, if states are not allowed to respect the establishment of religion then why did three of them have state religions at the time of the ratification and keep it until as late as almost 1850? How do you refute that?



Mike

Calm down..
The Tenth Amendment merely spells out that power begins with the people or the states.
The US Constitution is a limiting document.
Do not forget, while the federal government is limited by the US Constitution, so are the people and the states.
You're arguing that the US Constitution applies only to the federal government. Therefore the people and/or the states are not limited. That is not true.
This link cites "Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad in which the Court ruled that a corporation indeed did have "person" status.
HowStuffWorks "The 14th Amendment and Artificial Personhood"....
For example. The 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 gave the federal government ultimate power over the states with regard to newly freed slaves.
Others...We have in the Constitution the full faith and credit clause.
ARTICLE IV

SECTION 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
These are just two examples of where the SCOTUS and the states have given the federal government power over the states and/or the people/persons.
I think you are going down the wrong road here.
You cannot as a matter of convenience or to support a theory, choose which parts of the Constitution you wish that seem to support your view.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So then, I ask you again. What in the Constitution applies the first amendment to the states? The tenth amendment does not. The tenth amendment does not restrict the states. It says that anything that federal government doesn't have control over is granted to the states or to the people. The federal government is clearly not given any authority over religion, freedom of speech or the press. That authority is taken from the federal government. Show me where in the hell you find that a power not granted to the federal government is by default not granted to the states. That is exactly the opposite of what the Tenth Amendment says.

Finally, if states are not allowed to respect the establishment of religion then why did three of them have state religions at the time of the ratification and keep it until as late as almost 1850? How do you refute that?



Mike

The 14th amendment.

Care to explain the origination of the "incorporation doctrine"? Go back and look and you will find it to be ludicrous, dangerous and vile. The 14th amendment only does so by some perverse case law acrobatics.

Mike

Ok now you are going off the tracks here. You've formed an opinion based on your own beliefs. You have convinced yourself you are correct.
Based on your ignorance of the facts, that ends the discussion

 

[Texanmike]

And you are starting to sound like a liberal.

Once Again the tenth amendment gives the states the authority that has not been given to the federal government.

So then, I ask you again. What in the Constitution applies the first amendment to the states? The tenth amendment does not. The tenth amendment does not restrict the states. It says that anything that federal government doesn't have control over is granted to the states or to the people. The federal government is clearly not given any authority over religion, freedom of speech or the press. That authority is taken from the federal government. Show me where in the hell you find that a power not granted to the federal government is by default not granted to the states. That is exactly the opposite of what the Tenth Amendment says.

Finally, if states are not allowed to respect the establishment of religion then why did three of them have state religions at the time of the ratification and keep it until as late as almost 1850? How do you refute that?



Mike

Calm down..
The Tenth Amendment merely spells out that power begins with the people or the states.
The US Constitution is a limiting document.
Do not forget, while the federal government is limited by the US Constitution, so are the people and the states.
You're arguing that the US Constitution applies only to the federal government. Therefore the people and/or the states are not limited. That is not true.
This link cites "Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad in which the Court ruled that a corporation indeed did have "person" status.
HowStuffWorks "The 14th Amendment and Artificial Personhood"....
For example. The 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 gave the federal government ultimate power over the states with regard to newly freed slaves.
Others...We have in the Constitution the full faith and credit clause.
ARTICLE IV

SECTION 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
These are just two examples of where the SCOTUS and the states have given the federal government power over the states and/or the people/persons.
I think you are going down the wrong road here.
You cannot as a matter of convenience or to support a theory, choose which parts of the Constitution you wish that seem to support your view.

That is just the problem. The SCOUTS doesn't have the authority to give anyone anything. They have used "case law" as an instrument to legislate.

The states did not grant universal authority in either case. The FFAC clause granted Congress the manner of proving records across state lines. It wasn't giving congress the authority over the documents themselves but rather the burden of proof.

Im still not sure what the point you are making is.I never said that the federal government had no authority, I said it had to be enumerated by the states in the constitution.

I am not ignoring anything. You must show when the states grant certain authority or the federal does not have that authority. You have go an examples that support my stance.

And the Constitution is not a limiting document. It is a granting document. It was ratified by 13 sovereign states. They granted certain powers to the federal government. The tenth amendment is evidence (and was promised to the anti-federalists by the federalists as a condition of ratification to ensure that the federal government would not violate the sovereignty of the states.)

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

The 14th amendment.

Care to explain the origination of the "incorporation doctrine"? Go back and look and you will find it to be ludicrous, dangerous and vile. The 14th amendment only does so by some perverse case law acrobatics.

Mike

Ok now you are going off the tracks here. You've formed an opinion based on your own beliefs. You have convinced yourself you are correct.
Based on your ignorance of the facts, that ends the discussion

Im not going off on any tracks. Ever looked into it? It started in 1892. It used a line in the Illinois constitution to prove Illinois was subservient to the federal government.

Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Care to explain the origination of the "incorporation doctrine"? Go back and look and you will find it to be ludicrous, dangerous and vile. The 14th amendment only does so by some perverse case law acrobatics.

Mike

Ok now you are going off the tracks here. You've formed an opinion based on your own beliefs. You have convinced yourself you are correct.
Based on your ignorance of the facts, that ends the discussion

Im not going off on any tracks. Ever looked into it? It started in 1892. It used a line in the Illinois constitution to prove Illinois was subservient to the federal government.

Mike

Mike no state can over ride the Constitution. It cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution, because the Constitution is the law of the land.

 

[Texanmike]

Ok now you are going off the tracks here. You've formed an opinion based on your own beliefs. You have convinced yourself you are correct.
Based on your ignorance of the facts, that ends the discussion

Im not going off on any tracks. Ever looked into it? It started in 1892. It used a line in the Illinois constitution to prove Illinois was subservient to the federal government.

Mike

Mike no state can over ride the Constitution. It cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution, because the Constitution is the law of the land.

When have I suggested a State can run contrary to the Constitution? I haven't.

Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Im not going off on any tracks. Ever looked into it? It started in 1892. It used a line in the Illinois constitution to prove Illinois was subservient to the federal government.

Mike

Mike no state can over ride the Constitution. It cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution, because the Constitution is the law of the land.

When have I suggested a State can run contrary to the Constitution? I haven't.

Mike

That's been the basis of your whole argument.

 

[Texanmike]

Mike no state can over ride the Constitution. It cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution, because the Constitution is the law of the land.

When have I suggested a State can run contrary to the Constitution? I haven't.

Mike

That's been the basis of your whole argument.

Somewhere you got confused. The whole point was that the Constitution does not apply the first amendment to the states. The Constitution applies it to Congress, not the states. How is that lost?

Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When have I suggested a State can run contrary to the Constitution? I haven't.

Mike

That's been the basis of your whole argument.

Somewhere you got confused. The whole point was that the Constitution does not apply the first amendment to the states. The Constitution applies it to Congress, not the states. How is that lost?

Mike

There you go again.
This comment of your's

The whole point was that the Constitution does not apply the first amendment to the states. The Constitution applies it to Congress, not the states. How is that lost?

contradicts


your last comment.

When have I suggested a State can run contrary to the Constitution? I haven't.

 

[Texanmike]

That's been the basis of your whole argument.

Somewhere you got confused. The whole point was that the Constitution does not apply the first amendment to the states. The Constitution applies it to Congress, not the states. How is that lost?

Mike

There you go again.
This comment of your's

The whole point was that the Constitution does not apply the first amendment to the states. The Constitution applies it to Congress, not the states. How is that lost?

contradicts


your last comment.

When have I suggested a State can run contrary to the Constitution? I haven't.

Once again. Congress shall create no law... How is that NOT self explanatory?

Furthermore, how were 3 states allowed to have state religions (respecting the establishment of a religion) even after the first Amendment was ratified? If I am wrong why did they let the states keep their religion?

I can't believe this is arguable.


Mike