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.
Though Senators can (rarely) lose an election, that thy can is not germane to the fact that they no longer answer to the state houses, as they were meant to.Saying we're a republic but a democracy is like saying it's Coke but it's Pepsi.
The Senators of today represent their own interests, as there is no mechanism for them to be removed from office for becoming creatures of D.C., as there was prior to 1913.
The enactment of the 17th pretty much ended the republic and gave us bicameral mobocracy.
That's nonsensical. Senators can't lose elections? lol, you are on a roll.
Of course there's corruption, and the potential for corruption, as with all elected people, but at least you don't have folks outright buying legislatures like was done back then. They are forced to take their case to the people every six years as to why they should be elected/reelected.As if it decreased corruption : :: : LOL
...
No, in a Democracy, the Sovereignty lies within the People as a Collective.
In a Republic, the Sovereignty lies within the Persons, Individually.
Each individual is Sovereign, as John Locke, John Milton and several others proclaimed (Popular Sovereignity), meaning even 99% of the collective cannot infringe upon their rights.
Most of these theories are centered about Property Rights --- which were protected by the 5th Amendment until Kelo vs New London.
I cannot find a single right-wing OR left-wing group that was happy with Kelo vs New London.
That makes no sense. You're claiming a Democracy cannot have a Constitution? Why not?
Bro, how much are you paid to do this? Do you get benefits? Only a corporatist pig would gloss over the Kelo vs New London reference.
Of course there's corruption, and the potential for corruption, as with all elected people, but at least you don't have folks outright buying legislatures like was done back then. They are forced to take their case to the people every six years as to why they should be elected/reelected.As if it decreased corruption : :: : LOL
...
The reason there was widespread support for the 17th was because the old system just wasn't working. Not to mention the many states that were deadlocked - thus depriving whole states from representation for a period of time.
Take note: "Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states." In Delaware, for four straight years ---> No senator at all.
This abolish the 17th Amendment bullshit is just ridiculous.
Just try taking away the people's right to vote for representation. Just try it.
It's a joke to think that could ever gain any real traction.
Saying we're a republic but a democracy is like saying it's Coke but it's Pepsi.I guess prior to the 17th amendment you might have a point (even then we still elect state legislatures through popular vote...)
But it's 2013 and we DO have the 17th amendment, all of congress is elected through popular vote in their respecting states/districts. In every way possible we have a representative democracy. It's still a republic, but it's a democracy.
The Senators of today represent their own interests, as there is no mechanism for them to be removed from office for becoming creatures of D.C., as there was prior to 1913.
The enactment of the 17th pretty much ended the republic and gave us bicameral mobocracy.
No it isnt...you can be a Republic and be a democracy at the same time, all being a Republic means is there is no monarch as head of state. Democracy means ruled by the people through voting.
Someone who thinks representative democracy is something different than a republic describe what they think our government would look like if it were a democracy.
And be specific.
That makes no sense. You're claiming a Democracy cannot have a Constitution? Why not?
Bro, how much are you paid to do this? Do you get benefits? Only a corporatist pig would gloss over the Kelo vs New London reference.
Tell us specifically what John Locke objected to in a democracy as a form of government.
Though Senators can (rarely) lose an election, that thy can is not germane to the fact that they no longer answer to the state houses, as they were meant to.That's nonsensical. Senators can't lose elections? lol, you are on a roll.
So in order not to be a democracy, which conservatives consider evil, we have to take the election out of the hands of the People?
And how is that accomplished anyway, if 'the mob' elects state legislatures?
Are you saying that state legislators have some sort of obligation not to properly represent their constituencies?
lol, you're a proper loon.
I bet you would leave the Ten Commandments to those that worshiped the Golden Calf, huh.
Someone who thinks representative democracy is something different than a republic describe what they think our government would look like if it were a democracy.
And be specific.
So none of you 'experts' can answer the above? You're experts on what is or isn't a democracy but you can't even explain what makes the US not a democracy?
And as I asked earlier, tell us who the 'mob' is. Identify the 'mob' and tell us why we can't let it have any say in the government.
Though Senators can (rarely) lose an election, that thy can is not germane to the fact that they no longer answer to the state houses, as they were meant to.
So in order not to be a democracy, which conservatives consider evil, we have to take the election out of the hands of the People?
And how is that accomplished anyway, if 'the mob' elects state legislatures?
Are you saying that state legislators have some sort of obligation not to properly represent their constituencies?
lol, you're a proper loon.
Principle is Not about Mob Rule or the flavor of the Day, it Never has been. When we abandon checks and balances, enumeration of Powers, Government by the consent of the Governed, when we abandon Justice for Expediency or Convenience, we all lose.
No construct is of more value or worth than it"s prime Purpose for existing in the first place. There is Vision, Discovery, Invention, there are the Principles that drive our lives, realized or not, popular or not.
Someone who thinks representative democracy is something different than a republic describe what they think our government would look like if it were a democracy.
And be specific.
So none of you 'experts' can answer the above? You're experts on what is or isn't a democracy but you can't even explain what makes the US not a democracy?
And as I asked earlier, tell us who the 'mob' is. Identify the 'mob' and tell us why we can't let it have any say in the government.
Majority Rule, Majority Tyranny, the abandonment of Principle for Self Interest and gain, with no stops. Madison Style Federalism, had built-in safeguards, most have been removed. How else would our Representatives Sign Bills that they have neither read or understand? What kind of Responsible would impose their will on the rest of us like that? That it is common place, and has been, is a testament against them.
[MENTION=20155]paperview[/MENTION]..where there was a tremendous amount of corruption, and part of the reason the voters decided to Amend the Constitution to allow for direct democracy of Senators.
As if it decreased corruption : :: : LOL
That's the problem with Progressives (at least the heartfelt ones), they actually THINK they can SOLVE corruption.
Corruption is the very nature of Government. The Constitution and the procedures within it are meant to limit and disperse the concentration of the corruption amongst factions.
When the Founders choose the State Legislatures as the body to appoint Senators, they KNEW that localized corruption and local factions (local/state corporations and other monied interests) would be dominant in the selection process. However, this method LIMITED it to interests WITHIN the STATE only. This insured that State itself benefited from their choice.
This also gave the States a direct way to counter the encroachment of the Federal Government, because they would JEALOUSLY guard THEIR POWERS. Many of the best and most outstanding arguments AGAINST nullification were DEPENDENT upon this method of choosing Senators. The idea being that the States could recall their Senators and replace them with new ones in order to block an overbearing Federal Government. Notice how small the federal government was BEFORE the 16th and 17th Amendments (both passed in 1913). Ever since the 17th Amendment was passed, all of the strong arguments against Nullification have evaporated; thus, in some sense, the 17th Amendment LEGALIZED Nullification in order to PEACEFULLY enforce the 10th Amendment; because now the States have NO other PEACEFUL method to enforce the 10th Amendment.
(back to the previous paragraph) With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the LIMITATION keeping this corruption WITHIN the State was eliminated. Now Senators were beholden to NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL interest groups. This makes them LESS ACCOUNTABLE to the People of the Several States.
-----------------------------------------
Also, riddle this:
Since there already existed a Popular House (House of Reps), if the People choose wrongly in the House, what makes you think they would choose correctly for the Senate during the same election cycle? Notice how the Senate, even now, is staggered in 6 year terms, just to make sure the People didn't devour themselves in a single election cycle.
So the riddle:
"If one House is Elected by the People, why should there exist another House that is also elected by the People?"
So in order not to be a democracy, which conservatives consider evil, we have to take the election out of the hands of the People?
And how is that accomplished anyway, if 'the mob' elects state legislatures?
Are you saying that state legislators have some sort of obligation not to properly represent their constituencies?
lol, you're a proper loon.
Principle is Not about Mob Rule or the flavor of the Day, it Never has been. When we abandon checks and balances, enumeration of Powers, Government by the consent of the Governed, when we abandon Justice for Expediency or Convenience, we all lose.
No construct is of more value or worth than it"s prime Purpose for existing in the first place. There is Vision, Discovery, Invention, there are the Principles that drive our lives, realized or not, popular or not.
Was the California Prop 8, which was a referendum, mob rule?
Hmmm...perhaps a little insight here, where Intense seems to be in favor of "'mob rule"So none of you 'experts' can answer the above? You're experts on what is or isn't a democracy but you can't even explain what makes the US not a democracy?
And as I asked earlier, tell us who the 'mob' is. Identify the 'mob' and tell us why we can't let it have any say in the government.
Majority Rule, Majority Tyranny, the abandonment of Principle for Self Interest and gain, with no stops. Madison Style Federalism, had built-in safeguards, most have been removed. How else would our Representatives Sign Bills that they have neither read or understand? What kind of Responsible would impose their will on the rest of us like that? That it is common place, and has been, is a testament against them.
You've joined the random capitalization cult? Fascinating.
So...if the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional, even though there is good reason to believe that most American citizens support the law,
is that our system working properly against 'the mob', or working unjustly against the 'will of the People'?
So none of you 'experts' can answer the above? You're experts on what is or isn't a democracy but you can't even explain what makes the US not a democracy?
And as I asked earlier, tell us who the 'mob' is. Identify the 'mob' and tell us why we can't let it have any say in the government.
Majority Rule, Majority Tyranny, the abandonment of Principle for Self Interest and gain, with no stops. Madison Style Federalism, had built-in safeguards, most have been removed. How else would our Representatives Sign Bills that they have neither read or understand? What kind of Responsible would impose their will on the rest of us like that? That it is common place, and has been, is a testament against them.
You've joined the random capitalization cult? Fascinating.
So...if the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional, even though there is good reason to believe that most American citizens support the law,
is that our system working properly against 'the mob', or working unjustly against the 'will of the People'?
I already replied.Since you all seemed to ignore this particular post, I would like to place it back in your view.
@paperview..where there was a tremendous amount of corruption, and part of the reason the voters decided to Amend the Constitution to allow for direct democracy of Senators.
As if it decreased corruption : :: : LOL...
lolConservatives profess to abhor Mob Rule?
But conservatives for 3 years have been ranting about the Affordable Care Act having been passed against the will of the People,
and have cited poll after poll insisting that more Americans were opposed to the law than supported it.
So, if we had Mob Rule, in the form of some sort of referendum on passing such a law,
then the anti-mob conservatives would be happy?
lol.
Hmmm...perhaps a little insight here, where Intense seems to be in favor of "'mob rule"Majority Rule, Majority Tyranny, the abandonment of Principle for Self Interest and gain, with no stops. Madison Style Federalism, had built-in safeguards, most have been removed. How else would our Representatives Sign Bills that they have neither read or understand? What kind of Responsible would impose their will on the rest of us like that? That it is common place, and has been, is a testament against them.
You've joined the random capitalization cult? Fascinating.
So...if the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional, even though there is good reason to believe that most American citizens support the law,
is that our system working properly against 'the mob', or working unjustly against the 'will of the People'?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2896033-post14.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3782480-post164.html
