America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Voting is part of both systems lib..

ah but when you have a very very conservative Constitution you can only vote for a few thinks. Its a trick to make you feel empowered when really you are not.

We you have no constitution you can vote for nazis. Do you get it now?

 

[Dante]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

Patrick Henry said of the founding convention..."I smelt a rat"....Franklin was the smartest one hands sown and he wanted no president and a one-house legisslature

... Patrick Henry and others lost the argument. There were lots of others making proposals like Franklin did, but they didn't make it into the final draft. moot moot moot

Unless of course we are to go back in time and demand things be different.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

Splitting hairs.............the main point is direct democracy versus a Republic............under democracies people vote to elect reps just as in a republic............but it's not a pure democracy where the winner takes it all...............

It's been a republic for the life of our nation............suddenly it's all broken................it is in certain areas............when the people and elected officials found out they could spend to their hearts content out of the wallets of the tax payers.

A representative democracy is the DEFINITION of a republic, brainwashed dingbat loudmouth. Most mobs AREN'T liberals but right wing, see lynch mobs, KKK, Hitler SA. There hasn't been a true democracy,when all citizens met in an arena, debated, and voted. It's impossible in a larger nation. That's why we're a republic= a representational democracy. How much spend is irrelevant. See Reagan, Booosh etc. It all comes down to that, right, selfish, one track mind, brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich New BS GOP.

I agree with almost this whole post but republic does not equal representative democracy....it is really just the latin term for democracy...Republics thru ages ahve had direct citizen lawmaking.

google up the Cato report "there is room for direct democracy in a republic"

the point is thanks to our geniuis founders we have a constitutional republic to limit democracy,

 

[Dante]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

One can have a republic that is NOT a representative democracy.

 

[dcraelin]

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

Splitting hairs.............the main point is direct democracy versus a Republic............under democracies people vote to elect reps just as in a republic............but it's not a pure democracy where the winner takes it all...............

It's been a republic for the life of our nation............suddenly it's all broken................it is in certain areas............when the people and elected officials found out they could spend to their hearts content out of the wallets of the tax payers.

A representative democracy is the DEFINITION of a republic, brainwashed dingbat loudmouth. Most mobs AREN'T liberals but right wing, see lynch mobs, KKK, Hitler SA. There hasn't been a true democracy,when all citizens met in an arena, debated, and voted. It's impossible in a larger nation. That's why we're a republic= a representational democracy. How much spend is irrelevant. See Reagan, Booosh etc. It all comes down to that, right, selfish, one track mind, brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich New BS GOP.

I agree with almost this whole post but republic does not equal representative democracy....it is really just the latin term for democracy...Republics thru ages ahve had direct citizen lawmaking.

google up the Cato report "there is room for direct democracy in a republic"

the point is thanks to our geniuis founders we have a constitutional republic to limit democracy,

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

Patrick Henry said of the founding convention..."I smelt a rat"....Franklin was the smartest one hands sown and he wanted no president and a one-house legisslature

... Patrick Henry and others lost the argument. There were lots of others making proposals like Franklin did, but they didn't make it into the final draft. moot moot moot

Unless of course we are to go back in time and demand things be different.

FYI the rat Patrick Henry smelled was a big liberal govt!!

 

[eagle1462010]

Voting is part of both systems lib..

ah but when you have a very very conservative Constitution you can only vote for a few thinks. Its a trick to make you feel empowered when really you are not.

We you have no constitution you can vote for nazis. Do you get it now?

Under a Republic, Direct Democracy you can vote for the party of your choice...........and if the people were stupid enough to elect the Nazi party to power as in Germany then your Constitution is lost after they gained power. The Nazi's got voted in...........and then took completely over.

This happened in a time of ANARCHY...........they were financially in the pits of hell when they took power, and desperate people will vote to go to hell for a job and a sandwich.

 

[Dante]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.
Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the OP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

first of all it has to be structured right...to give a true idea of the will of the majority...the Republicans dont have a legitimate majority in the house...gerrymandered districts are a huge problem....

second there always has to be an option to ask the people directly I think on most issues....a national referendum...so if they tried to do something like insitute a "free-trade" deal that no one wants...it would get shot down.

LOL............

the only reason you guys lost is because it's RIGGED............Give me a break...........you could look at districts where Dems have favorable boundaries...............

The only national referendum needed is a Constitutional Convention............And if the vast majority agree with the Amendments pushed then it would be a true voice of the people event.

Your national referendum is impossible............to have the whole country go to the polls to pass any laws or set up trade agreements is crazy.

I like the idea of a nationla convention...people woulndt set up the deal...they would shoot it down....

I would like a Constitutional Convention, but I doubt we'd want the same things on the plate. To pass a Amendment that could pass would take an area of common concerns as they would be the only Amendments with a snow balls chance in hell of passing.

Name ten individuals you would have faith and trust in to represent you in a convention. Then try getting others to name ten. Almost impossible.

 

[dcraelin]

True. They created a representational democracy= A REPUBLIC.

Splitting hairs.............the main point is direct democracy versus a Republic............under democracies people vote to elect reps just as in a republic............but it's not a pure democracy where the winner takes it all...............

It's been a republic for the life of our nation............suddenly it's all broken................it is in certain areas............when the people and elected officials found out they could spend to their hearts content out of the wallets of the tax payers.

A representative democracy is the DEFINITION of a republic, brainwashed dingbat loudmouth. Most mobs AREN'T liberals but right wing, see lynch mobs, KKK, Hitler SA. There hasn't been a true democracy,when all citizens met in an arena, debated, and voted. It's impossible in a larger nation. That's why we're a republic= a representational democracy. How much spend is irrelevant. See Reagan, Booosh etc. It all comes down to that, right, selfish, one track mind, brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich New BS GOP.

I agree with almost this whole post but republic does not equal representative democracy....it is really just the latin term for democracy...Republics thru ages ahve had direct citizen lawmaking.

google up the Cato report "there is room for direct democracy in a republic"

the point is thanks to our geniuis founders we have a constitutional republic to limit democracy,

The "genious founders" didnt use the word republic like you do...see my pictures in my gallery...especailly one by dickenson as remembered by madison at the convention....

they used it as sysnonymous with democracy

 

[eagle1462010]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.
Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the OP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

first of all it has to be structured right...to give a true idea of the will of the majority...the Republicans dont have a legitimate majority in the house...gerrymandered districts are a huge problem....

second there always has to be an option to ask the people directly I think on most issues....a national referendum...so if they tried to do something like insitute a "free-trade" deal that no one wants...it would get shot down.

LOL............

the only reason you guys lost is because it's RIGGED............Give me a break...........you could look at districts where Dems have favorable boundaries...............

The only national referendum needed is a Constitutional Convention............And if the vast majority agree with the Amendments pushed then it would be a true voice of the people event.

Your national referendum is impossible............to have the whole country go to the polls to pass any laws or set up trade agreements is crazy.

I like the idea of a nationla convention...people woulndt set up the deal...they would shoot it down....

I would like a Constitutional Convention, but I doubt we'd want the same things on the plate. To pass a Amendment that could pass would take an area of common concerns as they would be the only Amendments with a snow balls chance in hell of passing.

Name ten individuals you would have faith and trust in to represent you in a convention. Then try getting others to name ten. Almost impossible.

Difficult but not impossible............and states have to ratify and vote for the Amendments as a hole..........so if rats get into the convention..............they would have to get a massive vote to win the rats agenda.

All in all the Convention could be dangerous.

 

[eagle1462010]

Splitting hairs.............the main point is direct democracy versus a Republic............under democracies people vote to elect reps just as in a republic............but it's not a pure democracy where the winner takes it all...............

It's been a republic for the life of our nation............suddenly it's all broken................it is in certain areas............when the people and elected officials found out they could spend to their hearts content out of the wallets of the tax payers.

A representative democracy is the DEFINITION of a republic, brainwashed dingbat loudmouth. Most mobs AREN'T liberals but right wing, see lynch mobs, KKK, Hitler SA. There hasn't been a true democracy,when all citizens met in an arena, debated, and voted. It's impossible in a larger nation. That's why we're a republic= a representational democracy. How much spend is irrelevant. See Reagan, Booosh etc. It all comes down to that, right, selfish, one track mind, brainwashed chump of the greedy idiot rich New BS GOP.

I agree with almost this whole post but republic does not equal representative democracy....it is really just the latin term for democracy...Republics thru ages ahve had direct citizen lawmaking.

google up the Cato report "there is room for direct democracy in a republic"

the point is thanks to our geniuis founders we have a constitutional republic to limit democracy,

The "genious founders" didnt use the word republic like you do...see my pictures in my gallery...especailly one by dickenson as remembered by madison at the convention....

they used it as sysnonymous with democracy

They would state a Gov't of laws created by the people, via the election process.

But other forms of Gov't exist including Direct Democracy. And our system, THE REPUBLIC, is better. The system of Checks and Balances was a Great thing. Making it difficult to pass laws, especially during a small period of time of reactionary thinking.

 

[Dante]

dcraelin

I'd have to look up the recall thing, but if it's factual I'd bet it was a high bar to pass, like a super majority.

Representing a state or it's people doesn't mean not voting your own conscience. If that were so we would have a government run by plebiscite and referendum. think Hitler and Nazi party

I see you on here defended the idea that we are a democracy...then you turn around and say that!!!....Hitler hated democracy....

he cetainly never used referendum or plebisite.....

Hitler used a form of direct/popular democracy to take over.

What in the world are you talking about?

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHALL
Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES



Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 -- Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on hisDictatorship but Opposition Is Doubled

Popular democracy breeds the type of democracy we saw during the Arab Spring. I for one loathed what would result -- proven on that one.

your giving the result of an "election" after hitler had already beeen ruling and consolidating power...illegitimate...

so you like the egyption regiem now....didnt they condemn 30 journalists to death or long prison terms some months back...didnt here how all that turned out..

as far as I know Morisi didnt do anything that bad

A plebiscite, not an election. The Nazi party won free elections.

Good gawd, what's with the false choices? The regime now is a direct result of the Arab Spring. People who fail to grasp the concepts without an experience of democracy and republicanism always cause great harm with good intentions.

Direct democracy and the concept that winner takes all, that 50 plus 1 means one gets to do what one wants without recognition that a huge minority needs to be brought in. Was Egypt was better off under Mubarak?

Morsi was terrible. He brought about the coup

I dont think morsi was given enough of a chance.......

dont understand you point about plebiscite and elections...Hitler never won, honestly, a 50% plus election.

what made the majority in america want the bill of rights?...the majority if honeslty asked is usually pretty fair....now religious conflict can be a problem as the English know also....but still ultimately the most pratical/fair way to iron things our is democracy

Split hairs all you want, but Hitler won within the system they had. End of story. Good people voted for his program.

Morsi was given more than a chance, but he was ill equipped and too inexperienced to govern adequately. He was in charge -- he gets the blame. Unless of course you feel sorry for our little brown cousins who need patronizing?


In the constitutional convention: The minority wanted the Bill of Rights. Look at the first constitution in Massachusetts and at Virginia's. Look at the progression of the arguments for and against an enumerated bill of rights. The majority if asked on any given day will lock up every Japanese American during war time hysteria or demand fairness for them when things calm down. Do not ever make the mistake of putting your life in the hands of the majority.

Me, I'd usually ask for a trial by Judge rather than by Jury depending on the reputation of the court and Judge.

 

[Dante]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.

Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the GOP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

Idjit! If we went Franklin's way there would probably be no GOP today. Gawd, you're dumb as dirt

 

[Dante]

It's a false choice you put forward. In critiquing her opinion you have exposed an equally abhorrent (to me and others) opinion -- in the words of Clinton and others who demagogue a point "The American people always get it right in the end."

Direct elections of Senators got rid of one set of problems in exchange for another set of problems. While we can disagree or agree over which set of problems is more desirable, direct democracy is still an ugly red headed step child

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

States are part of the nation. They are part of we the people........The red bolded statement is BS.

We are a country of states, and states are made up of people. National laws AFFECT STATES.........force them to change laws in their state to comply with Federal Laws.............So they should have a say in it.

You and many like you continue to view the FEDERAL GOV'T as an ENTITY OF IT'S OWN............It is not..........it is ELECTED REPS of STATES to decide National laws............How in the world did you come in with States should mind their own business when they are actually PART OF THE FEDERAL GOV'T in CREATING LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE........................

Sovereignty of the people is different than sovereignty of the states. States have a say. Elections are run by counties within each states. States send representatives to both houses of the Congress. House members are elected by districts drawn up by states and Senators are elected state wide.

The Federal Government is not a collection of state legislators, it is it's own entity. The US Constitution says so.

You appear confused on how things work. It's okay. You're probably from the South

I never said that the Federal Government is a collection of state legislators...........I said that under OUR REPUBLIC the Senate was THEIR VOICE................the HOUSE was created as the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

It's OWN ENTITY..................They are hired to do a dang job...............They are EMPLOYEES OF THE PEOPLE............and should be fired when they do a shitty job..............That's not an ENTITY on to itself............The District of Columbia is no mans land for a reason. It is occupied by a bunch of used car salesmen.

Distinction with a huge difference: Elected Representatives are not equivalent to Employees of yours or mine.

jesus christ, I forgot why I needed a break from usmb

 

[dcraelin]

dcraelin

I see you on here defended the idea that we are a democracy...then you turn around and say that!!!....Hitler hated democracy....

he cetainly never used referendum or plebisite.....

Hitler used a form of direct/popular democracy to take over.

What in the world are you talking about?

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHALL
Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES



Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 -- Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on hisDictatorship but Opposition Is Doubled

Popular democracy breeds the type of democracy we saw during the Arab Spring. I for one loathed what would result -- proven on that one.

your giving the result of an "election" after hitler had already beeen ruling and consolidating power...illegitimate...

so you like the egyption regiem now....didnt they condemn 30 journalists to death or long prison terms some months back...didnt here how all that turned out..

as far as I know Morisi didnt do anything that bad

A plebiscite, not an election. The Nazi party won free elections.

Good gawd, what's with the false choices? The regime now is a direct result of the Arab Spring. People who fail to grasp the concepts without an experience of democracy and republicanism always cause great harm with good intentions.

Direct democracy and the concept that winner takes all, that 50 plus 1 means one gets to do what one wants without recognition that a huge minority needs to be brought in. Was Egypt was better off under Mubarak?

Morsi was terrible. He brought about the coup

I dont think morsi was given enough of a chance.......

dont understand you point about plebiscite and elections...Hitler never won, honestly, a 50% plus election.

what made the majority in america want the bill of rights?...the majority if honeslty asked is usually pretty fair....now religious conflict can be a problem as the English know also....but still ultimately the most pratical/fair way to iron things our is democracy

Split hairs all you want, but Hitler won within the system they had. End of story. Good people voted for his program.

Morsi was given more than a chance, but he was ill equipped and too inexperienced to govern adequately. He was in charge -- he gets the blame. Unless of course you feel sorry for our little brown cousins who need patronizing?


In the constitutional convention: The minority wanted the Bill of Rights. Look at the first constitution in Massachusetts and at Virginia's. Look at the progression of the arguments for and against an enumerated bill of rights. The majority if asked on any given day will lock up every Japanese American during war time hysteria or demand fairness for them when things calm down. Do not ever make the mistake of putting your life in the hands of the majority.

Me, I'd usually ask for a trial by Judge rather than by Jury depending on the reputation of the court and Judge.

your better off with the jury

 

[eagle1462010]

Lets do a what if on direct democracy.

Franklin wanted only one house.............Right now the House would be ruled by the GOP................So now we could repeal any law we wanted to repeal..............and the Dems couldn't do anything to stop it...................

And we would say WILL OF THE PEOPLE.................and do as we please................................

Would you want that direct Democracy then.........................I don't think so............it leads to anarchy.........

Creating a republic, the rule of law, made difficult to change or create laws through checks and balances ensures we don't have MOB RULE.

Idjit! If we went Franklin's way there would probably be no GOP today. Gawd, you're dumb as dirt

Baloney...............Their would still be power struggles and groups of people who would try to garnish all the power under any form of Gov't..........No matter what you would call the party.

It would be direct democracy where a simple majority would decide the fate of all...........50% plus one...............that is idiotic.

 

[Dante]

our Founders did not create a democracy because they thought the people were too stupid to be relied upon for good guidance. We have much more of democracy today because politicians have found that pandering to the electorate with democratic offers to empower them is an easy way to get votes.

Our genius Founders knew best.

Patrick Henry said of the founding convention..."I smelt a rat"....Franklin was the smartest one hands sown and he wanted no president and a one-house legisslature

... Patrick Henry and others lost the argument. There were lots of others making proposals like Franklin did, but they didn't make it into the final draft. moot moot moot

Unless of course we are to go back in time and demand things be different.

FYI the rat Patrick Henry smelled was a big liberal govt!!

really? Did he also have HDAD?

 

[eagle1462010]

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

States are part of the nation. They are part of we the people........The red bolded statement is BS.

We are a country of states, and states are made up of people. National laws AFFECT STATES.........force them to change laws in their state to comply with Federal Laws.............So they should have a say in it.

You and many like you continue to view the FEDERAL GOV'T as an ENTITY OF IT'S OWN............It is not..........it is ELECTED REPS of STATES to decide National laws............How in the world did you come in with States should mind their own business when they are actually PART OF THE FEDERAL GOV'T in CREATING LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE........................

Sovereignty of the people is different than sovereignty of the states. States have a say. Elections are run by counties within each states. States send representatives to both houses of the Congress. House members are elected by districts drawn up by states and Senators are elected state wide.

The Federal Government is not a collection of state legislators, it is it's own entity. The US Constitution says so.

You appear confused on how things work. It's okay. You're probably from the South

I never said that the Federal Government is a collection of state legislators...........I said that under OUR REPUBLIC the Senate was THEIR VOICE................the HOUSE was created as the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

It's OWN ENTITY..................They are hired to do a dang job...............They are EMPLOYEES OF THE PEOPLE............and should be fired when they do a shitty job..............That's not an ENTITY on to itself............The District of Columbia is no mans land for a reason. It is occupied by a bunch of used car salesmen.

Distinction with a huge difference: Elected Representatives are not equivalent to Employees of yours or mine.

jesus christ, I forgot why I needed a break from usmb

We vote them in and vote them out.....They are payed by the Taxpayers............which are the people of this country...................so my point is on the mark.

Take a dang vacation if you choose under the Freedom of a Republic where your Freedom is protected via the laws under the checks and balances of this country.

I believe your view of our elected officials is flawed. Take the vacation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they used it as sysnonymous with democracy

yes because ultimately they had to sell it to the people!! when it meant that the people were giving up much of their power if they supported it.

 

[Dante]

first of all it has to be structured right...to give a true idea of the will of the majority...the Republicans dont have a legitimate majority in the house...gerrymandered districts are a huge problem....

second there always has to be an option to ask the people directly I think on most issues....a national referendum...so if they tried to do something like insitute a "free-trade" deal that no one wants...it would get shot down.

LOL............

the only reason you guys lost is because it's RIGGED............Give me a break...........you could look at districts where Dems have favorable boundaries...............

The only national referendum needed is a Constitutional Convention............And if the vast majority agree with the Amendments pushed then it would be a true voice of the people event.

Your national referendum is impossible............to have the whole country go to the polls to pass any laws or set up trade agreements is crazy.

I like the idea of a nationla convention...people woulndt set up the deal...they would shoot it down....

I would like a Constitutional Convention, but I doubt we'd want the same things on the plate. To pass a Amendment that could pass would take an area of common concerns as they would be the only Amendments with a snow balls chance in hell of passing.

Name ten individuals you would have faith and trust in to represent you in a convention. Then try getting others to name ten. Almost impossible.

Difficult but not impossible............and states have to ratify and vote for the Amendments as a hole..........so if rats get into the convention..............they would have to get a massive vote to win the rats agenda.

All in all the Convention could be dangerous.

back to reason:

Yeah a convention could be dangerous, but I'd support one if I could name enough people I'd trust. We need one. We need leadership.

What we have is demagogues and ligtweight prima donnas