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.

 

Romney to reach 1,144 Delegates in Texas:

page: 13
6
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Well you can just put your head in the sand and pretend that your right...but you still aren't. Not completely.
Until you can show me some references that the United States is PURELY a Constitutional Republic then I henceforth stand by assertions that we are a hybrid of a Representative Democracy / Cons. Republic.



Show me a reference it is not?
"I pledge of allegiance to my Flag and the ' ' for which it stands..."
Fill in the blank please.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A Republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." — James Madison, Federalist Papers (the McClean Edition), Federalist Paper #10, page 81, 1788

edit on 23-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



de·moc·ra·cy   [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.



re·pub·lic   [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.


Note in a Democracy the "Free Electoral System" whereas in a Republic it is not stated there is a Free Electoral System. In a republic, "the power rests in the BODY of citizens ENTITLED to vote". The United States does not have a caste system. If you are born here, you are a citizen and can vote. A republic implies some sort of caste system, whereas only a sub group of citizenry are allowed to participate in the running of the state.

In Rome a member of the Republic may have been a citizen but denied the right to vote.
Source

I use Rome as a model because it was a Constitutional Republic and one of the largest in history. It is well documented and is a perfect basis to compare the differences of a Representative Democracy vs. a purely Constitutional Republic.

Therefore, as I stated before, the United States while retaining many parts of a Constitutional Republic is in fact a Representative Democracy hybrid which combines elements of both.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 


If you are not a legal citizen you can not vote. Much like in Rome. I suppose we have a caste system afterall. By the way at the founding of the U.S. could women vote? Black people? Sounds more and more like a Republic. Thanks for agreeing. Now, show me anything substantive saying we are not a Republic, as your last attempt proved America was founded as a Republic.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I never really thought Republic and Democracy to necessarily be mutually exclusive. Although the nation was intended to be a republic, albeit a republic by their own unique definition for the time, isn't it also democratic? It seems there may be some wiggle room needed if anyone is trying to define these in their pure sense.

en.wikipedia.org...

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.


This seems to imply the US had some democratic traits that weren't necessarily part and parcel to the definitions of "republic" as it was known to be at that time. There are some actions done by direct vote of the people. The founding fathers included that quality in their concept of a republic and redefined it as such. A republic back then seemed to suggest it was representational and not a monarchy but in this day it appears a constitutional monarchy could be a republic if they wished to call it that.

Let me know if you ever get your debate here resolved.


edit on 27-6-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Do not cite wikipedia, meaningless. Also if we are not electing the Monarch how would you imagine it is a Republic? Im genuinely interested.
edit on 27-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Do not cite wikipedia, meaningless. Also if we are not electing the Monarch how would you imagine it is a Republic? Im genuinely interested.


Yet another meaningless citation:

en.wikipedia.org...

A crowned republic is a form of constitutional monarchy where the monarch's role is ceremonial and all the royal prerogatives are prescribed by custom and law in such a way that the monarch has little or no discretion over governmental and constitutional issues.

The term has been used to describe governments of various realms, including the Kingdom of Norway, and some of the Commonwealth realms. It can refer to a nation that is a nominal monarchy but in which the people by their citizenship may be seen as ultimately holding power over the nation's affairs. This may apply to a constitutional monarchy where the sovereign personally exercises little political influence, whether vested with executive authority or not.

The term crowned republic has been used in this context by supporters of the monarchy within the Commonwealth realms. The Commonwealth of Australia, for example, has been referred to as a crowned republic. The novelist and essayist H. G. Wells used the term to describe the United Kingdom, as did Alfred, Lord Tennyson in his poem Idylls of the King.


You may wish to take up any argument with them. I'm not personally interested in defining civilization myself, others already do that.


edit on 27-6-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by zeeon
 


If you are not a legal citizen you can not vote. Much like in Rome. I suppose we have a caste system afterall. By the way at the founding of the U.S. could women vote? Black people? Sounds more and more like a Republic. Thanks for agreeing. Now, show me anything substantive saying we are not a Republic, as your last attempt proved America was founded as a Republic.


Listen - if you chose not to read the sources I provide or question their authenticity or veracity and remain ignorant in your beliefs despite not being able to provide any decent sources for your argument then I'm done debating with you.

The fact that women and blacks could not vote early in the days of the United States was not a caste system comparable to Rome. Romans had a social caste system that divided up citizenship not just as birth right but as wealth, stature, and linage dictated. The United States had no such system. Traditionally women haven't had the right to vote since ancient times - and neither did slaves. Women weren't even allowed to vote in the UK until 1918. Comparing something which was a world wide long held tradition among modern civilizations is comparing apples and oranges. The lack of voting privileges between Women and Slaves is the ONLY comparison between Rome and the early United States that you CAN draw. There are many distinct others, but as I'm fairly sure you failed to read the source I gave you, you don't know that.

As I stated before, and now as another poster is trying to tell you the United States has elements of both systems, which make it unique. The United States was never a pure Republic. For arguments sake, even if it were, it is not now, thanks to equal rights, civil rights and the free electoral system. Thus, again, even assuming that United States was at one time a republic, it is not anymore. Your argument is moot.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 


You wanted a source.

When this country was founded, only white men with property were routinely permitted to vote (although freed African Americans could vote in four states). White working men, almost all women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise.

www.iwantmyvote.com...

It should be common knowledge early in US history many peole were denied the right to vote, based on gender, color, and land ownership. You can twist it whatever way you want.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
What does the current conversation really have to do with this thread topic? If you want to talk about what America is/isn't please make a new thread and stop debating the issue on a thread that has nothing to do with it!

Thanx.
edit on 27-6-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


I agree, I apologize for allowing a Romney hater to derail the point of the thread, which is, Romney is the nominee, the rest is semantics.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


I agree, I apologize for allowing a Romney hater to derail the point of the thread, which is, Romney is the nominee, the rest is semantics.


I'm not a Romney hater, I'm a Paul supporter. That's not mutually exclusive. I also apologize for the debate, however when one calls me out and says I'm wrong about something, I'm going to correct them (ie., You).
If you can't see the writing on the wall, than that's your problem, not mine. Also, I see the personal attacks have started because you can't offer any decent sources for your point of view.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 


That's what the new thread button is for below. You can even link it into this thread and say let's discuss the topic here!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join