Is the US a democracy?

[Truthmatters]

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.

Well, that puts us pretty much in agreement. Of course you can't say anything complete about the U.S. government by calling it a democracy; there is much more specific detail to go into in order to describe it properly.

I do find that some people like to insist that we're "a republic, not a democracy," though. It's a fairly common line in certain right-wing circles, and what they imply by it, whether they will admit it or not, is that they want a government restricted to rule by the "better" people and denying an effective voice to the great unwashed. That's what I can't agree with.

I read the book in your link. Wrong direction. We need to restrict voting, not expand it.





Mike

this is your republican party

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your republican party is NOW cheating YOU out of democracy.

like a complete idiot you are defending their attempt to discredit the idea of democracy by feeding you trolls misinformation about the VERY definitions of words.

You swallow it whole

like a complete idiot you are defending their attempt to discredit the idea of democracy by feeding you trolls misinformation about the VERY definitions of words.

You say you don't lie but you lied in this post^^^^^^^^^^
Show the post where I defended republicans for cheating.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...minority-voter-impact-down-2.html#post4529358


here you are defending the cheating

Where is my post in that link?
That's two lies in the same thread you have posted.

 

[Texanmike]

Well, that puts us pretty much in agreement. Of course you can't say anything complete about the U.S. government by calling it a democracy; there is much more specific detail to go into in order to describe it properly.

I do find that some people like to insist that we're "a republic, not a democracy," though. It's a fairly common line in certain right-wing circles, and what they imply by it, whether they will admit it or not, is that they want a government restricted to rule by the "better" people and denying an effective voice to the great unwashed. That's what I can't agree with.

I read the book in your link. Wrong direction. We need to restrict voting, not expand it.





Mike

this is your republican party

I'm not a Republican.

Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I read the book in your link. Wrong direction. We need to restrict voting, not expand it.





Mike

this is your republican party

I'm not a Republican.

Mike

We know that.

 

[Truthmatters]

Bullshit.

he is in the tank for the people who want voting restricted.

Hes a righty

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/181318-compromise-is-a-dirty-word.html

hes a right wing hack

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/208231-holy-shit-was-their-voter-fraud-in-maine.html


tell me how much you like this limiting of who gets to vote mike?

 

[Dragon]

I read the book in your link. Wrong direction. We need to restrict voting, not expand it.

Mike

Well, that's refreshingly honest. Why?

 

[Ernie S.]

You have been defending the lies for some time now.

Do you remeber how you treat my completely documented facts of republican cheating?

Let me guess: As more inane bullshit? Like the rest of your stupid crap it treated?
Do you ENJOY getting beat up and proven a liar on a daily basis?
Are you a masochist?

 

[Dragon]

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?

Originally, true. Since 1865, untrue. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Amendment XIV.)

Freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances have been judged by the courts to be "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Here's a little more: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Originally, true. Since 1865, untrue. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Amendment XIV.)

Freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances have been judged by the courts to be "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Here's a little more: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted that already he just ignored it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/208231-holy-shit-was-their-voter-fraud-in-maine.html


tell me how much you like this limiting of who gets to vote mike?

You lied twice in this thread already.

 

[Texanmike]

The 14th amendment applies the amendments to the states, because the states were ignoring the constitutional amendments.
Because of the 14th amendment the 1st amendment does apply to the states. As do all of the amendments.

Thank you for attempting an intellectual conversation. Specifically, what language in the 14th amendment do you think applies an amendment that begins with "Congress shall create no law" to the states. I can agree with the second because the right is seemingly universal, just from the way it was written.

As kind of an aside (which will relate back to our discussion) is it your belief that the meaning of the 14th amendment may change over time or does it mean what it meant when it was ratified? Do the courts have interpretive powers? Are they absolute and should all future courts be bound to the decisions made by the courts today?

Mike

Because state governments were free to ignore the American Constitution, they usually did; as a consequence, several state retained established state churches for many years. This changed, however, with the passage of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That is only the first section, but it is the most relevant one to this issue. First, it establishes just who qualifies as citizens of the United States. Second, it establishes that if someone is a citizen, then that person is protected by all of the privileges and immunities of the United States. This means that they are protected by the Constitution of the United States and that individual states are expressly prohibited from passing any laws which would abridge those constitutional protections.

As a consequence, every citizen of the United States is protected by the "rights and immunities" outlined in the First Amendment and no individual state is permitted to pass laws which would infringe upon those rights and immunities. Yes, the constitutional limitations on governmental powers apply to all levels of government: this is known as "incorporation."

The claim that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not restrict actions taken by state or local governments is nothing less than a lie. Some people may believe that they have legitimate objections to incorporation and/or believe that incorporation should be abandoned, but if so they then should say so and make a case for their position. Claiming that incorporation doesn't apply or exist is simply dishonest.

My objectiont to the incorporation doctrine is that it was not the intent of the 14th amendment. If it were the intent of the ratification of the Amendment then it would not have needed 4 decades to develop. The incorporation doctrine is not what was intended by the amendment.

It was intended as a reaction to the end of slavery and to give the freed slaves the same rights that everyone else had. It was not intended to give anyone any new rights. Thus, while the 2nd amendment was always meant to apply to the states the first Amendment was not.

The only way to arrive at another conclusion is to be one of the "the Constitution is a leaving and breathing document" people. If you are one of those then the discussion is lost.

Mike

 

[Poli_Sigh]

tell us why you believe it is or is not.

Tell us why you believe it is.

Definition of Democracy
Modern more popular definition is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Downside of a pure Democracy, the majority rules and as such has the power to exercise tyranny over the minority. That's primarily why this nation operates under the principles of a Republic and not a "pure" Democracy.

Definition of a Republic
A Republic government in which ALL the people - majority or minority - are governed and protected by a set of laws and a Constitution . John Adams defined a Republic as government of laws, not of men. Laws which are contained in a Constitution covering the entire population.

Definition of Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

By definition our system of economics is the antithesis of a Democracy, as well as a Republic.

And my observation is that America practices the most predatory form of Capitalism - which cares nothing about the tenets of either a Democracy or a Republic. Don't believe that's how we started out. Nor do I believe what we've become was the intention of the founding fathers, but here we are. And payback is a dog.

 

[Texanmike]

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?

Originally, true. Since 1865, untrue. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Amendment XIV.)

Freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances have been judged by the courts to be "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Here's a little more: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted that already he just ignored it.

I just didn't see it. I was operating off of my phone for most of the day yesterday.

Mike

 

[Truthmatters]

tell us why you believe it is or is not.

Tell us why you believe it is.

Definition of Democracy
Modern more popular definition is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Downside of a pure Democracy, the majority rules and as such has the power to exercise tyranny over the minority. That's primarily why this nation operates under the principles of a Republic and not a "pure" Democracy.

Definition of a Republic
A Republic government in which ALL the people - majority or minority - are governed and protected by a set of laws and a Constitution . John Adams defined a Republic as government of laws, not of men. Laws which are contained in a Constitution covering the entire population.

Definition of Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

By definition our system of economics is the antithesis of a Democracy, as well as a Republic.

And my observation is that America practices the most predatory form of Capitalism - which cares nothing about the tenets of either a Democracy or a Republic. Don't believe that's how we started out. Nor do I believe what we've become was the intention of the founding fathers, but here we are. And payback is a dog.

thank the republican party for that

 

[Texanmike]

I read the book in your link. Wrong direction. We need to restrict voting, not expand it.

Mike

Well, that's refreshingly honest. Why?

The system which we are currently working under has taken a sharp turn off of any path that anyone who espouses freedom can imagine. Without any sense of responsiblity people exercise their "right to vote". If you are someone who receives more in tax returns than you pay into the system you are essentiallly a tax consumer. If you are a tax consumer it would be in your best interest to keep voting out of the hands of other...

Just a bad way to establish a form of government

Mike

 

[Truthmatters]

see the complete lack of devotion to democracy from the right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You say you don't lie but you lied in this post^^^^^^^^^^
Show the post where I defended republicans for cheating.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...minority-voter-impact-down-2.html#post4529358


here you are defending the cheating

Where is my post in that link?
That's two lies in the same thread you have posted.

Still waiting

 

[Truthmatters]

Um post 71 which the link takes you straight to