T/F: The U.S. is a democracy

[The T]

de·moc·ra·cy

   [dih-mok-ruh-see]
noun, plural -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. -> Congress/Senate

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. -> Dictionary approves of the US being democratic on this point.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. -> Bill of Rights and US Constitution

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit. ^As above.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. -> Tick.

Origin:
1525&#8211;35; < Middle French démocratie < Late Latin d&#275;mocratia < Greek d&#275;mokratía popular government, equivalent to d&#275;mo- demo- + -kratia -cracy
Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com'

They clearly have a fierce ideological hatred against the word, the dictionary clearly has to be rewritten to meet it. They can write a fierce email and complain about how 'unfair' it is, America has a democratic government, it is a republic however. Republic =/= A government without democracy, also the Founders =/= Unquestionable Gods.

Now show us in the Constitution where the word is used?

Don't bother. It isn't there numbskull.

And for a good reason...

From federalist 10:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

Indeed. They knew a pure Democracy was nothing short of mob rule and anarchy was the next step.

We are a Republic based upon rule of law...not the whims of men.

 

[The T]

You're assuming there was a single "vision". Like "original intent", I believe there was no such thing.

Read the Document...Read the Federalists...You belive wrong. You were ill-educated.

Hamilton lied his ass off when he wrote the Federalist Papers. I am only sorry Burr didn't put one in his balls before blowing his head off. Could not have happened to a more deserving guy.

Keep in mind the government they were under when the Federalists were written. It was set of independent colonies that liked it that way except they could not fend off foriegn intruders or have good commerce if they all behaved like countries.

So for a very distinct and restricted set of reasons, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and started anew. You will notice that nobody was arguing that they were not giving enough power to the federal government. All the assurances were that the states would still be strong except in those limited areas. I particular like 10/39/44/45/46 in that regard. Hamilton even penned some of this himself.

How is that, given this environment, the left thinks there is any validity to their claim about the General Welfare clause essentially giving them unlimited power when it is clear that the fight was to convice states that only the most necessary power was being given to the fed. The states were pushing to stay independent.

It boggles the mind.

The Articles of Confederation were indeed woefully inept, and if they were kept intact? Would have made us today look much like the EU we see of today...

The Federal government in my view should address all issues common to all most notably Defense/Military and matters of Commerce.

The rest? Social issues...et., al should be left up to the Individual States as they see fit, and if other States have cause to join them engage in reciprocity.

And I DO see States as individual 'countries' that are bound to thier membership in the Union. And I also see the right for them to leave if the FED continues to trample the 9th and 10th as it is doing.
Shame that BOTH are trod upon by willing Representatives against the will of the people.

And be it remembered that without the 9th and 10th? Many States would have refused to join.

 

[The T]

Key word here is soverignty. And I marvel at those willing to give it up.

 

[Dragon]

There were state funded churches up through the mid 1830's with no serious challenges. The first amendment was never seen as a preventative to states doing their own thing when it came ot religion.

Not until the 14th Amendment was ratified. The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government. But it ALWAYS meant that applied to the federal government. Always, from the first.

In fact, it was the very reason Jefferson wrote his little letter to the D.B.s Because he was being blasted at the pulpit by all the congregationalists ministers in the north.

And nobody thought it was wrong.

I think you're a bit confused about Jefferson's views on church-state relations here. Here is something he enacted on a state level: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This preceded the language of the First Amendment, being written in 1777. The letter to the Danbury Baptists was written in 1802, when Jefferson was serving as president, and so was a discourse on the federal language; but it's clear that he felt the same way earlier.

 

[Dragon]

Hows that one variable economy working out for you ?

Fine, I guess. How's it going with your own dedication to a diet of pig feces?

 

[Dragon]

How is that, given this environment, the left thinks there is any validity to their claim about the General Welfare clause essentially giving them unlimited power

There is no such claim.

 

[Listening]

There were state funded churches up through the mid 1830's with no serious challenges. The first amendment was never seen as a preventative to states doing their own thing when it came ot religion.

Not until the 14th Amendment was ratified. The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government. But it ALWAYS meant that applied to the federal government. Always, from the first.

Screw selective incorporation.

It is not universal and it is an abomination.

I really don't care what the assholes on the SCOTUS say. New ones can say something else and hopefully it might happen some day.

 

[Listening]

How is that, given this environment, the left thinks there is any validity to their claim about the General Welfare clause essentially giving them unlimited power

There is no such claim.

Oh, I know there is no such legitimate claim, but that has not stopped the ignoramuses on the left from making it anyway.

 

[Listening]

Hows that one variable economy working out for you ?

Fine, I guess. How's it going with your own dedication to a diet of pig feces?

I don't ever recall saying I dined on the output from the DNC.

However, I do recall you trying to sell the idea that you could show certain correlations by ignoring everything but one variable.

Any more lies you wish to publish ?

 

[FactFinder]

FALSE

So obvious when so many people called to demand that TARP not pass and the bastards stuck up for their crony buddies instead. False when so many called to deny Obama care and the bastards stuck with their talking heads instead.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I chose "it's complicated."

The U.S. is supposed to be a democracy. However, it is, in actual fact, a plutocracy. Therefore, I cannot say that it is one.

To those who claim that it's "a republic, not a democracy": it's quite possible for a government to be both. That's called a representative democracy or a democratic republic, and it's what the U.S. is supposed to be.

A republic that is not a democracy is instead an aristocratic republic. Those who favor republican government but are against democracy are, therefore, in favor of aristocracy. I am not.

As wrong an answer as possible

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives have to lie about everything, even our form of government. FDR called us a "Democracy" and was wrong and a liar.

 

[konradv]

Key word here is soverignty. And I marvel at those willing to give it up.

I marvel at those willing to submit themselves to a 200+ year old "vision", that never existed!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Key word here is soverignty. And I marvel at those willing to give it up.

I marvel at those willing to submit themselves to a 200+ year old "vision", that never existed!!!

I marvel at how Useful Idiot Progressives worship a system with a 100% fail rate and think that "this time will be different"

 

[Listening]

There were state funded churches up through the mid 1830's with no serious challenges. The first amendment was never seen as a preventative to states doing their own thing when it came ot religion.

Not until the 14th Amendment was ratified. The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government. But it ALWAYS meant that applied to the federal government. Always, from the first.

In fact, it was the very reason Jefferson wrote his little letter to the D.B.s Because he was being blasted at the pulpit by all the congregationalists ministers in the north.

And nobody thought it was wrong.

I think you're a bit confused about Jefferson's views on church-state relations here. Here is something he enacted on a state level: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This preceded the language of the First Amendment, being written in 1777. The letter to the Danbury Baptists was written in 1802, when Jefferson was serving as president, and so was a discourse on the federal language; but it's clear that he felt the same way earlier.

I am not at all confused.

Jefferson wrote his letter in 1802. Once again your supposed superior intellect has taken you to a place where you are making up arguments that don't exist. All I did was cite his letter as a response to his being attacked from the pulpit while he was running to become the third president of the U.S. State religions had existed up to that point and they continued on.

 

[Listening]

Key word here is soverignty. And I marvel at those willing to give it up.

I marvel at those willing to submit themselves to a 200+ year old "vision", that never existed!!!

Ah...isn't it great though.

If we subscribe to Al Gore's "living breathing document", we can instill that vision today whether it existed or not 200 years ago.

 

[Queen]

"Under the Republic for which we stand."

You don't know the Pledge of Allegiance?

Seriously?

 

[Queen]

"Under the Republic for which we stand."

"...and to the Republic for which it (the flag) stands..."

She's so pathetic.

 

[The T]

Key word here is soverignty. And I marvel at those willing to give it up.

I marvel at those willing to submit themselves to a 200+ year old "vision", that never existed!!!

That's why law doesn't matter to morons like you. Seriously. It's why this Republic is in trouble is attitudes like yours.

 

[The T]

Key word here is soverignty. And I marvel at those willing to give it up.

I marvel at those willing to submit themselves to a 200+ year old "vision", that never existed!!!

Ah...isn't it great though.

If we subscribe to Al Gore's "living breathing document", we can instill that vision today whether it existed or not 200 years ago.

I'm with you. Principles are just that...it doesn't matter how long ago they were written.Some prefer anarchy to law of decent society I suppose.