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

[Ame®icano]

And Nazis and Fascists were far right, your video doesn't change history. Right wing is defined as ultra conservative and reactionary....there is no controversy about that.

'It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.' - Reagan

 

[Ame®icano]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

What's surprising to me is that people consider themselves conservatives and at the same time don't want their senators popularly elected.

And senators suppose to represent whom?

 

[peach174]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

no one wants to kill speech,...some like me...are interested in coming up with ways to make the boradcast of speech farier.

but structural changes to our legislative procedures would help our country also.

Making any speech fairer means censorship against free speech.
Some of left are killing speech.
Political Correctness is killing free speech
Liberal Colleges will not allow Conservative speakers or pro life activists speak.
Go against a lib professor be afraid to get a low grade.
Just to mention a few.

There is no constitutional free speech right to receive speaking invitations at colleges.

yep
Sure would not want the students exposed to any other speech's but liberal.
They are a college and students should be exposed to all sides of political views.

 

[Ame®icano]

So what? Democratic principles and rights are enshrined in our Republic. At first the electorate was mostly white male property owners. Now it's every citizen over 18 mostly .

That's different, the majority of the people voting for the Representatives did not change the way the three branches operate. That was a good thing
Changing the vote from the State legislators to the people changed the way that the House, Senate and Presidency works.

It was a good change, imo.

I agree. And since our Constitution was amended per the prescribed method, i don't see any reason to cry about it now. Don't like it - get your 2/3rds together.

I agree with this post.

I hope left will use the same reason when talking about gun control.

 

[peach174]

That is why there is Obamacare.

dear there is Obamacare because liberals lack the IQ to know capitalism would reduce prices 80% and add 10--20 years to our life spans.

Oh they know that all right.
That's why they are against it.
It would put them out of power to control the masses.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]. Each state gets two senators so that heavily populated states can’t drown out the interests of those with smaller populations. That’s one of those safeguards against the “tyranny of the majority” our Founding Fathers saw fit to provide.

Our Founding Fathers wanted a republic not a democracy TheUnion.com

Liberals did find the way around it.

Migration from blue to red states.

 

[Ame®icano]

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

Show us which you disbelieve and why: The USA is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Both are correct. That's why people often mix them up with "constitutional democracy".

US as is constitutional republic where people have the power to choose those who govern.

 

[bendog]

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

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

I didn't assert that CI impaired amending the constitution. The Irony was that Roberts said he just wanted to be a fair umpire and call balls and strikes. The 17th didn't end graft, but it did ultimately (or perhaps until CI) allow us to demand those buying influence identify themselves.

I think Reagan wanted a return to pre-civil rights laws America, and I don't mean to imply he was racist.

People have always been the problem. To that, there's no answer.

What Roberts did is classic -- he took the principled stance of bending over backward in order to respect Congress' role. It has been the philosophy of most all the Justices for ages

Not really. He declared congress to be without the power it exercised first in 1907, and then in 1947 and again in 1971. Some of us thought that his view of the constitution was just pre-great society, but it seems the new deal and even progressivism are fair game.

 

[Dante]

bendog

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

I didn't assert that CI impaired amending the constitution. The Irony was that Roberts said he just wanted to be a fair umpire and call balls and strikes. The 17th didn't end graft, but it did ultimately (or perhaps until CI) allow us to demand those buying influence identify themselves.

I think Reagan wanted a return to pre-civil rights laws America, and I don't mean to imply he was racist.

People have always been the problem. To that, there's no answer.

What Roberts did is classic -- he took the principled stance of bending over backward in order to respect Congress' role. It has been the philosophy of most all the Justices for ages

Not really. He declared congress to be without the power it exercised first in 1907, and then in 1947 and again in 1971. Some of us thought that his view of the constitution was just pre-great society, but it seems the new deal and even progressivism are fair game.

Try reading his decision and not the rantings of the blabbersphere.

The PPACA was a duly enacted law passed by a duly elected Congress and a duly elected President. The Court laid out it's reasoning on both the unconstitutionality and constitutionality differing challenges to law

here is a little bit to explain why you are not only in error, but spouting ideologically based talking points:

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however,become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176.

The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

no one wants to kill speech,...some like me...are interested in coming up with ways to make the boradcast of speech farier.

but structural changes to our legislative procedures would help our country also.

Making any speech fairer means censorship against free speech.
Some of left are killing speech.
Political Correctness is killing free speech
Liberal Colleges will not allow Conservative speakers or pro life activists speak.
Go against a lib professor be afraid to get a low grade.
Just to mention a few.

There is no constitutional free speech right to receive speaking invitations at colleges.

yep
Sure would not want the students exposed to any other speech's but liberal.
They are a college and students should be exposed to all sides of political views.

it has been my experience that religious colleges are far more intolerant of views that go against their beliefs than larger state schools.

 

[bendog]

bendog

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

I didn't assert that CI impaired amending the constitution. The Irony was that Roberts said he just wanted to be a fair umpire and call balls and strikes. The 17th didn't end graft, but it did ultimately (or perhaps until CI) allow us to demand those buying influence identify themselves.

I think Reagan wanted a return to pre-civil rights laws America, and I don't mean to imply he was racist.

People have always been the problem. To that, there's no answer.

What Roberts did is classic -- he took the principled stance of bending over backward in order to respect Congress' role. It has been the philosophy of most all the Justices for ages

Not really. He declared congress to be without the power it exercised first in 1907, and then in 1947 and again in 1971. Some of us thought that his view of the constitution was just pre-great society, but it seems the new deal and even progressivism are fair game.

Try reading his decision and not the rantings of the blabbersphere.

The PPACA was a duly enacted law passed by a duly elected Congress and a duly elected President. The Court laid out it's reasoning on both the unconstitutionality and constitutionality differing challenges to law

here is a little bit to explain why you are not only in error, but spouting ideologically based talking points:

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however,become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176.

The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles.

We disagree

 

[Dante]

bendog

"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

I didn't assert that CI impaired amending the constitution. The Irony was that Roberts said he just wanted to be a fair umpire and call balls and strikes. The 17th didn't end graft, but it did ultimately (or perhaps until CI) allow us to demand those buying influence identify themselves.

I think Reagan wanted a return to pre-civil rights laws America, and I don't mean to imply he was racist.

People have always been the problem. To that, there's no answer.

What Roberts did is classic -- he took the principled stance of bending over backward in order to respect Congress' role. It has been the philosophy of most all the Justices for ages

Not really. He declared congress to be without the power it exercised first in 1907, and then in 1947 and again in 1971. Some of us thought that his view of the constitution was just pre-great society, but it seems the new deal and even progressivism are fair game.

Try reading his decision and not the rantings of the blabbersphere.

The PPACA was a duly enacted law passed by a duly elected Congress and a duly elected President. The Court laid out it's reasoning on both the unconstitutionality and constitutionality differing challenges to law

here is a little bit to explain why you are not only in error, but spouting ideologically based talking points:

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however,become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176.

The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles.

We disagree

So bendog agrees that the Court should "strike down an Act of Congress" no matter if the "constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question" has been "clearly demonstrated?"

 

[Dante]

bendog

"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

I didn't assert that CI impaired amending the constitution. The Irony was that Roberts said he just wanted to be a fair umpire and call balls and strikes. The 17th didn't end graft, but it did ultimately (or perhaps until CI) allow us to demand those buying influence identify themselves.

I think Reagan wanted a return to pre-civil rights laws America, and I don't mean to imply he was racist.

People have always been the problem. To that, there's no answer.

What Roberts did is classic -- he took the principled stance of bending over backward in order to respect Congress' role. It has been the philosophy of most all the Justices for ages

Not really. He declared congress to be without the power it exercised first in 1907, and then in 1947 and again in 1971. Some of us thought that his view of the constitution was just pre-great society, but it seems the new deal and even progressivism are fair game.

Try reading his decision and not the rantings of the blabbersphere.

The PPACA was a duly enacted law passed by a duly elected Congress and a duly elected President. The Court laid out it's reasoning on both the unconstitutionality and constitutionality differing challenges to law

here is a little bit to explain why you are not only in error, but spouting ideologically based talking points:

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however,become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176.

The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles.

We disagree

So bendog agrees that the Court should "strike down an Act of Congress" no matter if the "constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question" has been "clearly demonstrated?"

 

[bendog]

Take pill for Christ's sake. LOL

 

[peach174]

Read the long list of definitions of 'democracy' and see how many of them support the OP's crackpot assertion:

Google

please -- peach174

List of countries by system of government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Types of democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I win, Corky.

Republic Define Republic at Dictionary.com

You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

From YOUR OWN LINK:

A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.

They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

 

[Dante]

Take pill for Christ's sake. LOL

 

[Dante]

Take pill for Christ's sake. LOL

 

[Dante]

I'm seeing double! Coool! Thanx bendog

 

[Dante]

please -- peach174

List of countries by system of government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Types of democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I win, Corky.

Republic Define Republic at Dictionary.com

You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

From YOUR OWN LINK:

A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.

They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...

it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept

 

[Ame®icano]

That's why we're a republic= a representational democracy.

no dear, its far more accurate to say we're a constitutional democracy. This means we have the extreme wisdom of our founders to limit the power of the people and the govt. You see now, they knew central power had been the source of evil in human history. You still don't know it even after seeing your great liberal friends Hitler Stalin and Mao. Ever think of college?

Can't agree with this.

I'll try to simplify it by saying that in democracy, the simple or governing majority can impose its will on the minority. The republic put constraints on government and protects individual rights. Two different things.

It's interesting that only those in power insist that we're democracy and ignoring that per the constitution, we are republic.