Walter Williams: Why the Founders Did Not Want a Democracy

[bigrebnc1775]

Con-tinuing to project, I see.

Nope projection is the specialty of the leftist.

 

[Lesh]

america isnt a democracy,,

It is a representative democracy numnuts

One in which the majority is expected to set policy

 

[Lesh]

For now, it's just local elections. National and state elections are next.

Nope.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is a representative democracy numnuts

One in which the majority is expected to set policy

you cant be that stupid,,,

the people dont vote on policy dumbass,,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is a representative democracy numnuts

One in which the majority is expected to set policy

Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but Republic is.

 

[Lesh]

Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but Republic is.

Yet while dependent on the people, the Constitution did not embrace simple majoritarian democracy. The states, with unequal populations, got equal representation in the Senate. The Electoral College also gave the states weight as states in selecting the president. But the centrality of states, a concession to political reality, was balanced by the House of Representatives, where the principle of representation by population prevailed, and which would make up the overwhelming number of electoral votes when selecting a president.

But none of this justified minority rule, which was at odds with the “republican principle.” Madison’s design remained one of popular government precisely because it would require the building of political majorities over time. As Madison argued in “Federalist No. 63,” “The cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Nope.

Watch and see.

 

[initforme]

When the wealthy, who cannot relate to anything average americans go through, we have a uticracy.

 

[Lesh]

Consider that President Abraham Lincoln, facing a civil war, which he termed the great test of popular government, used constitutional republic and democracy synonymously, eloquently casting the American experiment as government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And whatever the complexities of American constitutional design, Lincoln insisted, “the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible.”

 

[progressive hunter]

Consider that President Abraham Lincoln, facing a civil war, which he termed the great test of popular government, used constitutional republic and democracy synonymously, eloquently casting the American experiment as government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And whatever the complexities of American constitutional design, Lincoln insisted, “the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible.”

of course you have a link to lincoln saying that??

 

[Lesh]

of course you have a link to lincoln saying that??

Hey dumbfuk...you QUOTED the link

 

[busybee01]

for those that still think we are a democracy,, williams goes through in detail why we are not one,,

Williams is not totally right. It is true that we are not a direct democracy as that is impractical. However we are a partial democracy as we vote directly on the people who represent us.

 

[busybee01]

The least of our problems, since we live in a quasi Fascist oligarchy.

Thanks to you fascist pigs.

 

[progressive hunter]

Williams is not totally right. It is true that we are not a direct democracy as that is impractical. However we are a partial democracy as we vote directly on the people who represent us.

all that is true,,

but if youre going to accurately describe our form of government the correct label is
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

thats because its the constitution that sets the standards/laws for everything that comes after,,

 

[Ringtone]

Because they couldn't get full representation from the number of slaves they owned.

Interesting take. I was just wondering about yours.

 

[Natural Citizen]

all that is true,,

but if youre going to accurately describe our form of government the correct label is
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

thats because its the constitution that sets the standards/laws for everything that comes after,,

Constitutional Republic is redundant.

You are in dire need of reeducation and clearly aren't qualified to discuss the matter.

Please review Federalist #51, by Madison. For starters. I posted it previously.

 

[progressive hunter]

Constitutional Republic is redundant.

You are in dire need of reeducation and clearly aren't qualified to discuss the matter.

Please review Federalist #51, by Madison. For starters. I posted it previously.

I did,, and everything he talked about exists because of the constitution and clarifies more that it comes first,,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yet while dependent on the people, the Constitution did not embrace simple majoritarian democracy. The states, with unequal populations, got equal representation in the Senate. The Electoral College also gave the states weight as states in selecting the president. But the centrality of states, a concession to political reality, was balanced by the House of Representatives, where the principle of representation by population prevailed, and which would make up the overwhelming number of electoral votes when selecting a president.

But none of this justified minority rule, which was at odds with the “republican principle.” Madison’s design remained one of popular government precisely because it would require the building of political majorities over time. As Madison argued in “Federalist No. 63,” “The cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers.

Show me where democracy mentioned in the constitution

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting take. I was just wondering about yours.

Maybe this will help.

How the Three-Fifths Compromise Changed U.S. History

The three-fifths compromise was an agreement to count every enslaved American as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation purposes.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Ringtone]

This article from Bloomberg gives a nice generalized summary of the history of subsidized and segregated public housing policies and also provides some extra links at the bottom if you want to learn more. Frankly I find it embarrassing how many of you are ignorant of your own country's history.

You silly ass. You have no idea who you're talking to. I've forgotten more about American history than you'll probably ever grasp in your lifetime as you unconsciously interpret everything through a collectivist's perspective. That's the thrust of my observation regarding your exaggerated emphasis on the economic impact of public housing and the semipublicly insured mortgages of the mid-Twentieth century.