Term Limits Amendment

[Boss]

Well, it's because we're NOT A DEMOCRACY! However, the very foundation of who we are is essentially what got rid of slavery in the Western world AND brought women the vote. I will note that slavery STILL exists in places where they don't have Constitutional Republics like ours. And IF we had been a TRUE democracy in 1865, we wouldn't have gotten rid of slavery either.

Ever heard of William Wilberforce? The UK got rid of slavery long before the US. The first country to give women the vote was mine - NZ. Try again.

You're trying to have a different argument than I am. I didn't say the US was FIRST to eliminate slavery and give women the vote. I am certain Wilberforce was influential to our founding fathers who banned the slave trade when they forged the Constitution. They stopped short of banning slavery altogether because we had an agricultural-based economy that depended on slave labor (unlike the UK) but the language was there and even Frederick Douglass realized this. It took time, and ultimately, it took a Civil War, because... you see... DEMOCRACY was never going to end slavery.

I was only pointing out that the very thing you seem to have contempt for was actually the thing that got rid of slavery and gave women the vote. The proposition that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator. And no, that wasn't an exclusively new idea, but it was the first time man attempted to forge it into a Constitutional Republic and self-govern.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm NOT cherry-picking, I am using the definition you posted. My two senators from Alabama have the same power as two senators from California representing a much greater population. Supreme power is not vested in the people OR their agents, else California's Senators would have much more power. There would also be no Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people. Nine people in black robes have Supreme power in some cases. If the people AND THEIR AGENTS had supreme power, Hillary Clinton would be the president because we wouldn't have an electoral college.

Again... You can correctly say that our Republic is a form of democratic government, but that doesn't mean we're a Democracy. There are important distinctions that make us NOT a true democracy and that is what we're debating here. And it's really not a debate... we're simply NOT a Democracy and you've made no case to support that we are.

Of course you were cherry picking. Of course senators and congressmen are your agents. You mean you didn't vote for them to represent you? They're representing themselves??

All i have ever said was that you had a democratic form of govt. Your type of govt is a constitutional republic. I have never said anything less.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, it's because we're NOT A DEMOCRACY! However, the very foundation of who we are is essentially what got rid of slavery in the Western world AND brought women the vote. I will note that slavery STILL exists in places where they don't have Constitutional Republics like ours. And IF we had been a TRUE democracy in 1865, we wouldn't have gotten rid of slavery either.

Ever heard of William Wilberforce? The UK got rid of slavery long before the US. The first country to give women the vote was mine - NZ. Try again.

You're trying to have a different argument than I am. I didn't say the US was FIRST to eliminate slavery and give women the vote. I am certain Wilberforce was influential to our founding fathers who banned the slave trade when they forged the Constitution. They stopped short of banning slavery altogether because we had an agricultural-based economy that depended on slave labor (unlike the UK) but the language was there and even Frederick Douglass realized this. It took time, and ultimately, it took a Civil War, because... you see... DEMOCRACY was never going to end slavery.

I was only pointing out that the very thing you seem to have contempt for was actually the thing that got rid of slavery and gave women the vote. The proposition that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator. And no, that wasn't an exclusively new idea, but it was the first time man attempted to forge it into a Constitutional Republic and self-govern.

What you said was "essentially what got rid of slavery in the Western world AND brought women the vote". Untrue. On both counts. The vast majority of western countries - France, NZ, AUstralia, Canada. Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Austro-Hungary, Finland, Denmark, UK - had all gotten rid of slavery by 1865. So, no, you didn't rid the western world of slavery. In fact, you were one of the last holdouts in that regards.

NZ, Russia, Poland, Luxembourg, Norway, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Austria and Australia all gave women the vote before the US.

 

[Boss]

I'm NOT cherry-picking, I am using the definition you posted. My two senators from Alabama have the same power as two senators from California representing a much greater population. Supreme power is not vested in the people OR their agents, else California's Senators would have much more power. There would also be no Supreme Court to overturn the will of the people. Nine people in black robes have Supreme power in some cases. If the people AND THEIR AGENTS had supreme power, Hillary Clinton would be the president because we wouldn't have an electoral college.

Again... You can correctly say that our Republic is a form of democratic government, but that doesn't mean we're a Democracy. There are important distinctions that make us NOT a true democracy and that is what we're debating here. And it's really not a debate... we're simply NOT a Democracy and you've made no case to support that we are.

Of course you were cherry picking. Of course senators and congressmen are your agents. You mean you didn't vote for them to represent you? They're representing themselves??

All i have ever said was that you had a democratic form of govt. Your type of govt is a constitutional republic. I have never said anything less.

No, I am NOT the one cherry-picking, that is YOU! I am going strictly by the definition YOU posted! I did not say that Senators are not my agents or I didn't vote for them to represent me. All I said was that Senators don't make us a Democracy because their votes represent the States and not supremely the people. California has many more people than Alabama yet they both have only two Senators. AND... Regardless of our elected representatives, the SCOTUS can overturn any law they pass as unconstitutional. Now the SCOTUS is appointed by a President we elect but even the president is not elected democratically, we have an electoral college. If the president was democratically elected, Hillary Clinton would be our president.

We have a Republican form of government pursuant to the US Constitution Article IV Sec. 4, as I have correctly pointed out. It utilizes ASPECTS of democracy but we are NOT a true Democracy. This debate ends there, it's simply not an argument you can win. You can CALL us anything you please... you can CALL us an empty orange juice can if you like... it doesn't mean you're correct!

 

[Boss]

What you said was "essentially what got rid of slavery in the Western world AND brought women the vote". Untrue. On both counts. The vast majority of western countries - France, NZ, AUstralia, Canada. Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Austro-Hungary, Finland, Denmark, UK - had all gotten rid of slavery by 1865. So, no, you didn't rid the western world of slavery. In fact, you were one of the last holdouts in that regards.

NZ, Russia, Poland, Luxembourg, Norway, Hungary, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Austria and Australia all gave women the vote before the US.

I did not say that we ended slavery in the Western world. That's what you are trying like hell to warp my argument into and I didn't make that argument. It was indeed our founding principles of "all men are created equal" that eventually got rid of slavery here and elsewhere. And the UK did NOT ban slavery in their colonies. The UK condoned and upheld the practice of slavery for years after it was banned in the UK in places like India and South Africa. If you mean "ban slave trade" as "getting rid of slavery" then the US did this in 1792.

 

[there4eyeM]

The principles of Europe's age of enlightenment were well received by some early American intellectuals.