Arizona Republicans have a plan to make it easier to steal a presidential election

[Natural Citizen]

Really? Then what is it?

"a compound Republic"--a federation, or combination, of central and State Republics--under which: "The different governments will control each other . . . ," while within each Republic there are two safeguarding features: (a) a division of powers, as well as (b) a system of checks and balances between separate departments: "Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people." (The Federalist, number 51, by Madison.)

By far the greater quantity and variety of power was retained by the government of each State when the United States Constitution was framed and adopted in 1787-1788. Only a comparatively small part of each State's power was delegated by its people to the new central, or Federal, government--chiefly the powers concerning "war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce" (per The Federalist, number 45 by Madison). This delegated-power government--the central Republic--was granted few and limited powers; while each State's government is a full-power Republic under the State Constitution, subject to its restrictions, also to that grant, and to the few restrictions specified expressly in the United States Constitution as applying to the governments of the States.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Sounds like you are trying to create an elitist group that is allowed to vote and force their will upon the less elite who have been disenfranchised.

Well, there's absolutely no doubt about it that you're patently promoting the very idea by openly inferring that the American compound Republic is a Representative Democracy...a system premised on the very notion of rule by omnipotent Majority.

You're just too underinformed to realize it. And I'm only giving you that courtesy so as to avoid directly saying you're a communist.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But neither of those involve fundamental democratic rights.

“Democratic rights”? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Natural Citizen]

But neither of those involve fundamental democratic rights.

“Democratic rights”? What is that supposed to mean?

I was gonna ask the same question, Bob. But then I saw her promoting the falsehood that our compound republic is instead a Representative Democracy where the basis for governance is rule by omnipotent Majority.

She's either completely stupid to the reality of our form of governance or shes openly promoting communism through deception.

Probably a bit of both, in my view.

The correct term is, of course, Individual rights. Natural Individual rights, to be precise. Of course, that inconvenient truth gets in the way of the gag about America being a system premised upon a model of rule by omnipotent Majority she was trying to sell earlier.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ugh. How do these people get themselves into positions of authority anyway? I mean, what the heck. lolol. It's a train wreck just waiting to happen.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Really? Then what is it?

"a compound Republic"--a federation, or combination, of central and State Republics--under which: "The different governments will control each other . . . ," while within each Republic there are two safeguarding features: (a) a division of powers, as well as (b) a system of checks and balances between separate departments: "Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people." (The Federalist, number 51, by Madison.)

By far the greater quantity and variety of power was retained by the government of each State when the United States Constitution was framed and adopted in 1787-1788. Only a comparatively small part of each State's power was delegated by its people to the new central, or Federal, government--chiefly the powers concerning "war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce" (per The Federalist, number 45 by Madison). This delegated-power government--the central Republic--was granted few and limited powers; while each State's government is a full-power Republic under the State Constitution, subject to its restrictions, also to that grant, and to the few restrictions specified expressly in the United States Constitution as applying to the governments of the States.

The concept of a compound republic was rejected when the Constitution was adopted to replace the Articals of Confederation. You are living ain another century.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sounds like you are trying to create an elitist group that is allowed to vote and force their will upon the less elite who have been disenfranchised.

Well, there's absolutely no doubt about it that you're patently promoting the very idea by openly inferring that the American compound Republic is a Representative Democracy...a system premised on the very notion of rule by omnipotent Majority.

You're just too underinformed to realize it. And I'm only giving you that courtesy so as to avoid directly saying you're a communist.

It is apparent that you fear of rule by the majority because you know that the majoriy tends to be progressive, humanistic and liberal.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You are living ain another century.

You, too, are in dire need of re-education.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It is apparent that you fear of rule by the majority because you know that the majoriy tends to be progressive, humanistic and liberal.

Oh, don't go thinking that. Heh heh. I, for one, find your shallow spew very useful. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Keep it up!

 

[ESay]

, an able-bodied person who lives on state allowances for a certain period of time

Including people who are unemployed because of a pandemic or other factors beyond their controll?

There should be a certain period after which the voting right is lost. Three years, maybe.

What factors?

Sounds like you are trying to create an elitist group that is allowed to vote and force their will upon the less elite who have been disenfranchised. Let's just say screw voting and go back to a hereditary monarchy? At least that way we won't be pretending to be a representative democracy any more.

Why elitist? This wont have anything to do with heredity or even the level of income per se. Just work, pay taxes or give some other input to society you live in and you will have a say.

It is an elite group therefore Elitist. It has decided that poor should be stripped of their right to vote. What could possibly go wrong?

It is not. In this way elitist can be called everything. Inability to send kids to some universities because of high costs is also because of elitism. Or living in a certain neighborhoods.

But neither of those involve fundamental democratic rights.

Fundamental democratic rights, that sounds great, indeed. But the democracy is impossible without a strong society which can control those with a certain power. Strong society is possible only with active, self sufficient people who rely little on those who hold the power (on the contrary, those with the power should rely on those who support them).

People who rely on the government for their living are totally dependent from it and will care only about the funding going down to them from the government. People with the power will exploit this vulnerability for their advantage.

Thus, with this way of things, the democracy and fundamental democratic rights (heh) will turn out to be a bluff, void sound.