It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Ever Happened to the Constitution? - Judge Andrew Napolitano

page: 7
93
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Now you're just being insulting, rude, vulgar and nit picking...

I'll be simple...


You're whole "Legislature enacts amendments" argument....

Seriously?

Why don't you go quote what the House and Senate's responsibilities and scope of powers are. And you can clearly see they don't have the authority to enact any particular legislation of their choosing.

On to "Democracy".

We vote democratically. We don't pass laws based upon democratic whim. There is a difference.

On to "slavery"...

"Bound to service for a term of years".

Like I said earlier, our rights preempt the Constitution and the Constitution recognizes that. Despite indentured servitude being a provision of the Constitution...

It is not lawful because................

It deprives an individual of their INALIENABLE rights which PREEMPT the article making it *legal*.

Lawful/legal - massive difference, etc, etc.

So therefore if a Judge upheld the Constitution in it's fullest, and recognized the preemption of natural rights to the Constitution. No one could ever be held as an indentured servant as this deprives their right to liberty.

However, as I stated. Society accepted this violation of natural rights. Much as we do for various other things currently in history.

Servitude was the oil of the nation. It couldn't be escaped, even by the founders. However they provided us a remedy with the natural rights premise. That in an age where civilization is advanced enough to recognize and fully uphold natural rights, we could call upon the preemption of these rights to whatever law may be enacted to wrong us.

All we would have to do is say, and recognize that this violates the natural rights the Constitution was created to protect, and as such is not constitutional.

Very simple.

Slaves were seen in societies eyes as property before individuals. So as such they weren't recognized by society as having natural rights.

Fast forward, and oh my god. Now we see every human has natural rights, and slavery is unlawful under the Constitution despite it being in the Constitution! Because now they're humans and not property, yaaaay!

Did I just blow all your brains? I know I blew mine.


I thought we were discussing the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence.


I was discussing "rights" and the "purpose of government". Secondly, the Constitution can not exist without the Declaration, and the Declaration establishes the PURPOSE of government. Not only that but natural rights and the right to abolish government [Constitution] if it becomes destructive [to our rights].

Soooo....

I'm politely asking again.

Where do you understand "rights" and the "purpose of government" to be?

[edit on 13-8-2010 by mryanbrown]




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 




Now you're just being insulting, rude, vulgar and nit picking...


By quoting the actual words written in the Constitution? How can you be insulted by a quotation from the Constitution when we are discussing the Constitution?

Now its my turn to LOL!



It deprives an individual of their INALIENABLE rights which PREEMPT the article making it *legal*.

Lawful/legal - massive difference, etc, etc.

So therefore if a Judge upheld the Constitution in it's fullest, and recognized the preemption of natural rights to the Constitution. No one could ever be held as an indentured servant as this deprives their right to liberty.


Where in the Constitution is there anything about "inalienable rights which preempt" the provisions of the Constitution?

I quoted the Constitutional provisions that recognize slavery and treats the slave as personal property. Please return the favor by quoting where in the Constitution that anything can 'preempt' the Constitution? Remember, the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution. You might like to review Article VI (see below for a primer).



Slaves were seen in societies eyes as property before individuals. So as such they weren't recognized by society as having natural rights.


Good. For a while there I thought you might not have realized this. This was indeed the state of affairs in the United States when the Constitution was written. Interestingly, the three fifths compromise came about because the Northern States didn't want to count slaves at all (you wouldn't count horses or cattle would you?) and the Southern States wanted to count them fully (to increase their representation in Congress). "Northern States" had slaves too by the way, abolition in the North didn't happen until the 1830's, so the South was only about 30 years after.



Fast forward, and oh my god. Now we see every human has natural rights, and slavery is unlawful under the Constitution despite it being in the Constitution! Because now they're humans and not property, yaaaay!


ONLY BECAUSE:

  • the 13th Amendment banned slavery and gave Congress the power to enforce the ban
  • the 14th Amendment defined Citizenship so the States couldn't consider the former slaves as aliens (making Dred Scott moot) and extended the reach of the Bill of Rights to embrace acts of States so they couldn't deny the former slaves those rights (making Barron v. Baltimore moot).


There was no sudden epiphany that hey! presto! those black guys are people too and we need to respect their rights as people because The Declaration told us so. Slaves weren't people when the Declaration was written so it wasn't considered a contradiction (and Women aren't Men - no contradiction there either). Jefferson agonized over this, as did any thinking person, but the facts are the facts however repugnant they look to us today.



Secondly, the Constitution can not exist without the Declaration, and the Declaration establishes the PURPOSE of government.


The Declaration establishes the reason for the British colonies in America, to dissolve their previously acknowledged political bonds with the Crown. It justified independence, and listed the charges against the Kings Government. In no way did it define a way of governing that newly independent nation. It is a great document, but has no Constitutional standing what-so-ever.

The Declaration does rehearse the reason that humans everywhere establish Governments so that it can show that the existing Government system is not fulfilling those needs. It does not establish the specific reason for establishing the form of Government we have today. In fact, the form of Government we have today does not resemble the form of Government that was established a few months after the Declaration.

True, the Constitution is pointless without a Nation that needs a form of Government, and thus would not exist had Independence not been declared. However the Constitution was not implied by the Declaration of Independence. The first Constitution is called "The Articles of Confederation". The nation operated under the Articles from 1777 to 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. It didn't take long for the country to figure out that the Articles were completely unworkable, so they started from scratch.

The PURPOSE of the American Government is established in the Preamble to the Constitution.

The FORM of the American Government is established in the Articles of the Constitution as amended.

The Declaration of Independence is NOT part of the Constitution.

The 27 Amendments to the Constitution are valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution (quote from article V).

The Constitution cannot be internally inconsistent. An amendment doesn't ADD to the Constitution, it CHANGES it. Whatever the constitution said before is MODIFIED. Before the 13th amendment the Constitution recognized and enforced slavery where the States made it legal. The 13th Amendment banned slavery and changed the Constitution so that those provisions that recognized slavery were mooted.


Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


I have added this to point out that the Authors of the Constitution are telling you that there is nothing else that is the Constitution. The Constitution is the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence it the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the Supreme definition of the Government of the United States.



[edit on 13/8/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Let me make it easier for you, since obviously you refuse to acknowledge anything and only argue wild tangents detracting from the questions I've asked you.

Good day.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Representative republic....once slowly becoming, in the past 25 years, quickly becoming a democracy where mob rules.

Whereas there is a factor of majority, but not in the sense (yet) that you are implying.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





He's also making the claim that the bill of rights didn't apply to states prior to the 14th amendment, which is also ridiculous considering the bill of rights addresses our natural rights - which don't change no matter who is governing.


You are wrong.

Before the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal Government ONLY. The Feds could not establish a National Religion for example, but the States could have, had they chosen to do so. The Federal Government could not take possession of private property with out just compensation, but States could and did. That is exactly what the 1833 SCOTUS case Barron v the Mayor of Baltimore was about. I recommend you research the topic.



(Source Wikipedia)


Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) established a precedent on whether the United States Bill of Rights could be applied to state governments.

John Barron co-owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor. He sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels. The trial court awarded Barron damages of $4,500, but the appellate court reversed the ruling.

The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them." Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250.

The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments. Later Supreme Court rulings would reaffirm this ruling of Barron, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.




Again, just because the supreme court says they don't apply to everyone at all times doesn't mean they don't. The supreme court is a criminal institution of federalists.


The only thing I can make out of this is that you are advocating complete abrogation of the Constitution and a return to the Articles of Confederation? Is that what is meant by 'returning the Constitution to its original meaning'?

You are confusing "Constitutional Rights" with "Natural Rights". The SCOTUS can only comment on the Constitution. The extent that "Constitutional Rights" coincide with "Natural Rights" is all fine and dandy, but it is only "Constitutional Rights" that is the concern of the SCOTUS. The interpretation of the Constitution

"Natural Rights" most certainly do vary according to the norms of society. Our understanding of "Natural Rights" today is completely different to the understanding of "Natural Rights" in 1800's or in the 1400's or in 4th Century BCE. The subjects of Augustus Caesar would consider us insane barbaric anarchists for some of our so-called "Natural Rights".

Slaves aren't 'people'. Only people can have 'natural rights'.



The federal government can not be an impartial arbiter of disputes in regards to its own power.


Wow.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and defines the mechanisms of arbitrating disputes between the branches and the States. What other impartial arbiter do you suggest? The United Nations perhaps? Or the British Crown? How about Fidel Castro or Nelson Mandela?

Here is how to get that to happen:


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...




[edit on 13/8/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 13/8/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

In your particular post I'm referred to, you seem to be advocating Taxation without Representation. It's one of the primary reasons the Founding Fathers fought a war, ya' know. There are no specific terms included in the 17th Amendment that cause any modification, clarification, overturn or repeal of Article 4, Section 4, which means that it's still valid & Constitutional to provide the State Government with proper due representation in Congress!

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The 17th Amendment stands as a direct violation, in that it denies representation to the States, even while the US Government continues to tax the States! Without proper representation in Congress, our Federal government violates the Republic guaranteed to the States!

One of the primary Maxims of Law is that, "If it's not specifically included, then it must be expressly excluded" has been a precedent & consistantly upheld throughout American history.

Take notice that the 21st Amendment DID specify that it was amending the 18th Amendment by Repeal, but there is NO SUCH specifics included in the 17th Amendment (there's no specifics in the 16th Amendment either, but that's a different issue). Therefore, the 17th Amendment is NOT Constitutional because it did not "amend" Article 4, Section 4 in any way, means, shape or form.


Originally posted by rnaa
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and defines the mechanisms of arbitrating disputes between the branches and the States. What other impartial arbiter do you suggest? The United Nations perhaps? Or the British Crown? How about Fidel Castro or Nelson Mandela?

How about "We the People...ordain & establish this Constitution" as being arbiters? The government itself is already biased in favor of itself (due the the self-interested nature of human beings that are employed in government service), so the government CANNOT be trusted with defining the extent of their own, specifically limited Powers. The Constitution includes a system of checks & balances, but the ultimate source of all of those Powers originates from We the People...The final, ultimate "check" against a tyrannical government.

The Founding Fathers weren't dumb, ya' know...Hell, I even admit that sometimes I get a headache just trying to keep up with 'em.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 





In your particular post I'm referred to, you seem to be advocating Taxation without Representation.


No.

I'm not.

Even in my most cynical reading of that post, I cannot figure out how you get that from it.

Congress is your representation. The Constitution, established by "We the People" as the rule book for the Government to operate under, gives the authority to tax to Congress.

What the heck are you talking about?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 





There are no specific terms included in the 17th Amendment that cause any modification, clarification, overturn or repeal of Article 4, Section 4, which means that it's still valid & Constitutional to provide the State Government with proper due representation in Congress!



The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


The 17th Amendment stands as a direct violation, in that it denies representation to the States, even while the US Government continues to tax the States! Without proper representation in Congress, our Federal government violates the Republic guaranteed to the States!



Not one state has a Monarch - every state has a Republican form of Government.

The 17th Amendment changed the Constitution so that the Citizens of the various states elect their Senators, instead of being appointed by the un-democratic elite. That is MORE democracy, not less. That is MORE representation, not less.

The 17th amendment was proposed and ratified because the State appointment system was in shambles. California and Delaware went for years without representation in the Senate because of incompetence and political deadlock. Talk about taxation without representation! That is a prime breeding ground for the process to be captured by the power elite oligarchy.

It would be useful to study the history of the 17th amendment. Parroting the propaganda of the anti-Constitutional talking heads on the Australian network does you no service at all.

It is interesting that the impetus for direct election of Senators was lead by press baron William Randolph Hearst, and the for its destruction by Rupert Murdoch.


[edit on 14/8/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 






Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Perhaps you should do some research on the 16th amendment. There are several good arguements that it was not legally ratified. Ive looked into it, and there is good arguement for it.


It also seems that the SCOTUS is very reluctant to ave a hearing on the matter too...And this is in addition to the SCOTUS ruling on numerous specific cases where SCOTUS ruled that the 16th Amendment grants "no new Powers of taxation." Which means we have to go right back to the original Constitutional text, that does specify Tax Powers.


The history of the 16th Amendment is indeed very interesting, not least because people don't want to pay their fair share toward the operation of their nation and look for any excuse to weasel out of their taxes.

However, your complaint that SCOTUS is reluctant to review the matter is false. It has been challenged in many, many cases and found 100% legitimate in everyone.

The highlights of the tax protester arguments against the 16th Amendment include:


  • Typographic errors by the States reporting ratification.
    These were noted at the time and studied in great detail. None of the typos changed the meaning of the text as proposed by Congress, and all were trivial, wrong capitalization, substitution of the word 'lay' for 'levy', which in the context of taxation, means exactly the same thing.

    I see no evidence that these typographic errors have been tested in SCOTUS, however it has been tested many times in Circuit Courts, District Courts, and found irrelevant partly due to SCOTUS rules of procedure on such circumstances (the 'enrolled bill rule').

  • Ohio was not 'officially' admitted until 1954.
    There is indeed some confusion over the exact date that Ohio was admitted to the Union. However, none of the competing dates was later than March 1, 1803. Congress acted in 1954 to end the confusion and nominated the specific day. See Clearing up the Confusion surrounding OHIO's Admission to Statehood

    The Ohio admission date argument has been tested in many cases, 7 of which are listed in the Wiki page on Tax protestor arguments linked above.

    Furthermore, the 16th Amendment required 36 States to be ratified. Delaware was the 36th State, and did so on February 3, 1913, and Secretary of State Knox proclaimed it ratified on the 25th of February 1913.

    However, New Mexico, and Wyoming ratified it on 3 February 1913, New Jersey followed on 4 February and Virginia on 19 February. So there were 40 ratified States before it was proclaimed. Even if you don't count Ohio, there were 39 ratified States, on the day it was ratified, more than enough to legitimize the proclamation.

  • the 16th doesn't repeal the previous provisions in the Constitution, nor list those sections that it is overriding. But then neither does any other amendment other than the 21st (which repeals in whole the 18th).

    The historical process for the American Constitution is that amendments are listed but the original text is retained. Amendments MODIFY the Constitution.

    For comparison, when existing provisions are amended in the Australian Constitution, the text is changed at the source. This is much more cumbersome, error prone, and makes every copy ever printed obsolete. The American system is much more practical, precise, and flexible.








[edit on 14/8/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 14/8/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


What?!

I will not speak for the other member, BUT WHAT!?

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! Period!

Democracy is a prison constructed by the ignorant masses.

Tyranny is DIRECTLY related to democracies. Be it the majority or the king, tyranny is the SUBJUGATION of another human being. PERIOD.

Glad to see those without a moral compass believe because the majority can pass ANY law as long as there is a majority opinion, just REALLY freaks me out.

You would have fit in well in Nazi Germany.

Constitutional Republics were CREATED for the SOLE purpose for stopping MAJORITY rule. Constitutional PROTECTIONS were created for the very REASON YOU and others want democracy. Because YOU believe that the majority can subjugate the minority.

I do not see why ANYONE after your statement here, even bothers to debate with you.

Oh well, they have you right where they want you. Ignorant of your own sovereignty.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Thank you for your input.

I didn't know they allowed unfettered access to the internet from insane asylums.

One learns something new everyday.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


If you cannot debate the evidence, debate the opponent.

Typical fallacious argument.

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

Thanks for playing-fail

A Constitutional Republic protects the RIGHTS of the individual.

A Democracy allows the subjugation of the minority.

How does it feel to be a TYRANT?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
The history of the 16th Amendment is indeed very interesting, not least because people don't want to pay their fair share toward the operation of their nation and look for any excuse to weasel out of their taxes.



Uh, not only was this Amendment not ratified. But it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with paying a "fair share" towards the operation of the nation.

It solely pays off the interest to keep the money flowing to the coffers so that they are free to pursue whatever political goal they can through brute force financing.

And the way you word this leads me to believe you are attempting to associate a negative connotation to people who disagree with not only the Amendment and it's unlawfulness. But to those who would refuse to pay "income" tax period.

You can be well worded at times.
You can show hints of well read intelligence at times.

However you combine the two with tape and glue to present an argument you already decided before reading, or going into the argument. And you present snippets of information rather than it's full scope as to best aid your argument...

Rather than admitting what you want is how YOU feel government should work, not how it's actually supposed to work...

It's called brainwashing



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Uh, not only was this Amendment not ratified.


The 16th amendment was ratified in 1913.

reply to post by Smack
 


What should I think of it as? It's a collection of ideas written down and generally accepted by society since its incepetion, nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


There's evidence that shows it wasn't. The only evidence that says it was, was the evidence stating it was.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 





There's evidence that shows it wasn't. The only evidence that says it was, was the evidence stating it was.


My post enumerated the case against the ratification of 16 and the evidence that repudiates that case.

There is no 'evidence' against ratification of the 16th. There are interesting anomalies which have been thoroughly tested in court and found to be non-fatal. They have been so thoroughly tested in fact that attempting to use them as a defense against paying income tax has been declared vexatious.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I notice that rnaa seems to completely disregard any thought to Article 4, section 4, as I pointed out in my earlier posts...It guarantees the States with a Republican (ie: representative) form of government within the Senate, but the 17th Amendment violates it by making the Senate a public vote. There has been no Amendment or legislation of any kind that specifically "amends" Article 4, Section 4.

A bit of friendly advice for the few people who make a similar mistake...Read someone's entire post before blindly spouting off questions that were already answered...You'll save yourselves a lot of grief.

America was never intended to be a Democracy & was never intended to become a Democracy. The Founding Fathers abhorred Democracy as much (if not more) than Cold-War-Era America abhorred Communism.

Robert Welch
And for well over a hundred years our politicians, statesmen, and people remembered that this was a republic, not a democracy, and knew what they meant when they made that distinction.

The Founding Fathers knew history...And how Democracy always degenerates into tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

The main problem is that, when the majority votes away Rights for anyone, it's usually without ever realizing that once those Rights are gone, they're gone for everybody.

In a Democracy, all it takes is one charismatic person with a good PR team backing him up (Note the simularity to the majority of the primarily left-wing MSM of today!) to sway a Democracy in any direction he may wish. Let us not forget that post-WW1 Germany was a Democracy before Hitler "schmoozed" his way into Dictatorship. Let us also not forget that after WW2 & Hitler's atrocities came to light, the whole world yelled, "Never Again!"

And then we forget all too swiftly about Project Paperclip (look it up)...The Nazi's may have lost WW2, but Facism was merely transplanted into the USA.

I think the "original intent" can be summed up quite nicely in a mere three quotes:

US Constituion; Preamble
We the People of the United States... ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Thomas Jefferson
Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.


Thomas Jefferson
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Bold emphasis above is mine.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 




A Constitutional Republic protects the RIGHTS of the individual.


A Constitutional Republic is just as capable of trampling on the RIGHTS of the individual as any other form of government.

Example: North Korea. Totalitarian states are fond of calling themselves 'Democratic People's Republics', but there is nothing democratic about them, and the power elite do no represent the people nor do they offer any protection to minority interests.

Republic just means that there is no hereditary monarch. It doesn't magically bestow benevolence on what ever form of government there is.



A Democracy allows the subjugation of the minority.


Not necessarily.

The obverse is, of course, that a 'non-Democracy' allows the subjugation of the majority. That is why we have a Constitution that protects minority interests.

'Democratic' just means that people vote and that vote has meaningful impact on the performance of the Government.

The United States is a Constitutional Democratic Representative Republic. Going backwards, that means we have no monarch, "We the People" are represented in the Government, the people vote to choose those representatives, and we have a fundamental framework that defines how the Government works.

The rights of the minority are protected because the protection is built in to that Constitutional Framework, not because we have a Representative Republic. The Soviet Union had a Representative Republic, but minorities were never protected. China has a Representative Republic. Even Zimbabwe. It isn't the Representatives or whether or not there is a Monarch that protects minority rights. It is the rule of law that protects minority rights.

America is BOTH a democracy and a republic. They are not mutually exclusive terms, they are complimentary terms.

I dismissed your remarks because they smell of troll, and a rather pungent troll at that. Your second post didn't improve matters much. I invite you to prove me wrong by your future actions.


[edit on 15/8/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
America is BOTH a democracy and a republic. They are not mutually exclusive terms, they are complimentary terms.


Will someone please explain to me why some people can't grasp this?

No one ever says we're not a republic, we do argue that we are a democratic republic. We elect our representatives democratically. Is it the electoral college that throws you off? The system that allows for a minority be heard in presidential elections...

I think wikipedia says it best:

Democracy is a political form of government where governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy). The term comes from the Greek: dēmokratía, "rule of the people."



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 




I notice that rnaa seems to completely disregard any thought to Article 4, section 4, as I pointed out in my earlier posts...It guarantees the States with a Republican (ie: representative) form of government within the Senate, but the 17th Amendment violates it by making the Senate a public vote. There has been no Amendment or legislation of any kind that specifically "amends" Article 4, Section 4.


I did not disregard it. I gave you an answer about Article 4 Section 4:

Every State in the Union has a Republican form of Government.

To be a republic means that you don't have monarch. Period. It doesn't mean anything else. The authors of the Constitution wanted no truck with monarchs in the United States.

Article 4 Section 4 has nothing to do with how Senators are selected. How the Senators are selected has nothing to do with whether or not the States have a republican form of government (unless they are some how appointed by a monarch).

The original method of the States appointing Senators was a disaster. Incompetence of State Legislators, political deadlock, and interference by vested interests, meant that States were going without Senatorial representation for years at a time. How is anybodies rights protected by having no representation?

Your argument proposing that Jefferson considered democracy is evil is patently silly.

The principles of "Jefferson Democracy" specifically recognizes that "The core political value of America is representative democracy. See Jeffersonian Democracy



Source: Jefferson on Politics & Government

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing as I do that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23


Jefferson is specifically stating here that the more the element of popular election is inherent in their government, the more republican that government is. Jefferson would have been a supporter of the 17th amendment.

[edit on 15/8/2010 by rnaa]




top topics



 
93
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join