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

[Skylar]

If you have evidence of it, present it. Exactly as I did with 4 different citations of dictionaries from 2 different eras.

But of the two of us, only I've presented evidence to back my claims. You might want to fix that.

not this crap again...I have presented many quotes to you......Where do you think .dictionaries get their defintions?...from common usage as they find it.

My whole Gallery deals with this issue....I have posted some of them here.....

now address Arizona v Arizona

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claims with evidence. Exactly as I have. Instead, you give me excuses why you won't.

So...we have evidence from 2 different dictionaries, complete with 4 separate citations from me, with links for all of it.

And nothing but excuses from you.

I have referred to the Britannica article........

I have referred to the SC case Arizona v Arizona numerous times. in other threads even....and you have, laughably, refused to address it.

I have not seen your supposed dictionary definitions posted in this thread.....but even most modern dictionaries generally list republic and democracy as synonyms.

You're making vague reference to an article you haven't cited, quoted, or linked to in any way. While I'm citing the dictionary ...4 times, the Federalist Papers, and James Madison.

Directly.

Try again, this time with actual evidence.

didnt address Arizona again....hmmmm


democracy go to the section entitled "towards a representative democracy"
then scrooll down to where in big capital letters says REPUBLIC or a DEMOCRACY

This has no relevance to the understanding or usage of the terms by the Founders.

 

[bendog]

Ah yes, I was just wondering what in particular caught your fancy with TR

He was a progressive.
As President, he pushed executive powers to new limits, arguing that the rise of industrial capitalism had rendered limited government obsolete.

He took on the captains of industry and argued for greater government control over the economy, pursuing a two-pronged strategy of antitrust prosecutions and regulatory control.
He pushed through legislation that gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) new powers to set railroad rates, laying the foundation for the modern administrative state.
Casting himself as steward of the nation’s natural resources, he presided over the birth of the conservation movement.
Convinced that a strong defense was the best guarantee of peace, he built up the Navy and sent it around the world.

Anti-trust legislation is the worst thing that ever happened to America. (-:

 

[peach174]

Ah yes, I was just wondering what in particular caught your fancy with TR

He was a progressive.
As President, he pushed executive powers to new limits, arguing that the rise of industrial capitalism had rendered limited government obsolete.

He took on the captains of industry and argued for greater government control over the economy, pursuing a two-pronged strategy of antitrust prosecutions and regulatory control.
He pushed through legislation that gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) new powers to set railroad rates, laying the foundation for the modern administrative state.
Casting himself as steward of the nation’s natural resources, he presided over the birth of the conservation movement.
Convinced that a strong defense was the best guarantee of peace, he built up the Navy and sent it around the world.

Anti-trust legislation is the worst thing that ever happened to America. (-:

Yes as well as the Federal Reserve Bank, Federal Taxes and Election of Senators by the people to name a few.
Between Roosevelt and Wilson who really started it all, we have gone down the path of destruction of our government as a Republic.

 

[bendog]

All of these things can be done, or undone, by congress and the potus. There is no assault on representative democracy and a const republic. Although denying our const right to own slaves was a direct affront of our property rights, under your analysis.

 

[peach174]

All of these things can be done, or undone, by congress and the potus. There is no assault on representative democracy and a const republic. Although denying our const right to own slaves was a direct affront of our property rights, under your analysis.

People are not land.
You know that several of our Founders put in foundations to stop slavery.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All of these things can be done, or undone, by congress and the potus. There is no assault on representative democracy and a const republic. Although denying our const right to own slaves was a direct affront of our property rights, under your analysis.

People are not land.
You know that several of our Founders put in foundations to stop slavery.

And you know that conservatives tried to dissolve the Union in order to protect slavery.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you have evidence of it, present it. Exactly as I did with 4 different citations of dictionaries from 2 different eras.

But of the two of us, only I've presented evidence to back my claims. You might want to fix that.

not this crap again...I have presented many quotes to you......Where do you think .dictionaries get their defintions?...from common usage as they find it.

My whole Gallery deals with this issue....I have posted some of them here.....

now address Arizona v Arizona

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claims with evidence. Exactly as I have. Instead, you give me excuses why you won't.

So...we have evidence from 2 different dictionaries, complete with 4 separate citations from me, with links for all of it.

And nothing but excuses from you.

I have referred to the Britannica article........

I have referred to the SC case Arizona v Arizona numerous times. in other threads even....and you have, laughably, refused to address it.

I have not seen your supposed dictionary definitions posted in this thread.....but even most modern dictionaries generally list republic and democracy as synonyms.

You're making vague reference to an article you haven't cited, quoted, or linked to in any way. While I'm citing the dictionary ...4 times, the Federalist Papers, and James Madison.

Directly.

Try again, this time with actual evidence.

didnt address Arizona again....hmmmm


democracy go to the section entitled "towards a representative democracy"
then scrooll down to where in big capital letters says REPUBLIC or a DEMOCRACY

We are a Democracy. Period.

The word means the People hold the Power.

 

[dcraelin]

here's a little on Noah Webster from Wikipedia

Webster married well and had joined the elite in Hartford but did not have much money. In 1793, Alexander Hamilton lent him $1,500 to move to New York City to edit the leading Federalist Party newspaper. In December, he founded New York's first daily newspaper, American Minerva (later known as the Commercial Advertiser), which he edited it for four years, writing the equivalent of 20 volumes of articles and editorials. He also published the semi-weekly publication, The Herald, A Gazette for the country (later known as The New York Spectator).

As a Federalist spokesman, he was repeatedly denounced by the Jeffersonian Republicans as "a pusillanimous, half-begotten, self-dubbed patriot," "an incurable lunatic," and "a deceitful newsmonger ... Pedagogue and Quack.

 

[dcraelin]

Here is a little from a commentary on Arizona v Arizona by amy howe

Dictionaries in print around the time that the Constitution was drafted, the Court pointed out, defined the word “legislature” as “the power that makes laws.” And in Arizona, the power to make laws rests not only with the official body of elected representatives, but also with the voters themselves, who have the power under the state constitution to pass laws and constitutional amendments through initiatives – just as they did in this case.

 

[dcraelin]

here is a little from the decision showing the the court takes it as a matter of fact that the US is a democracy

"
[P]artisan gerrymanders,” this Court has recognized, “[are incompatible] with democratic principles.”
Vieth v.Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267, 292 (2004) "


also

There were obvious pre-cursors or analogues to the direct lawmaking operative
today in several States, notably, New England’s town hall meetings and the submission of early state constitutions to the people for ratification.

 

[dcraelin]

even the lawyer arguing the case against an initiative set up redistricting commission said

" the framers themselves said there ought to be conventions to approve the Constitution, not -- they shouldn't be approved just by votes of the State legislature."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the weight of redistribution in our society overwhelmingly favors the wealthy. As income inequalities have never been higher.

100% stupid and liberal given that the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income tax and invent all the stuff that got us from the stone age to here. They are like our Gods and guardians.

No society depends on the top 1% for govt revenue more than America and the top 1% have never paid as great a percentage of govt revenue as they do now.

therefore the weight of distribution in our society is far more biased against the rich than ever before.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As income inequalities have never been higher.

if ice hockey suddenly became the most popular sport in the world its players would suddenly become the highest paid athletes and among the most inequal people in the world.

With globalization the iphone suddenly became the most popular product in the world and its inventors suddenly became the richest and among the most inequal businessmen in the world.

this is a wonderful wonderful thing since the bigger the market served the more economic and technological development a company can afford to shower on the world!

The correct govt policy would be to double the income of Apple and give them heroic status, and the stupidest most liberal and insane thing to do would be to vilify them and buy votes by lying to stupid voters that Apple stole its money from the poor!.

 

[dcraelin]

some early dictionary definitions of legislature in the opinion

We note, preliminary, that dictionaries, even those in circulation during the founding era, capaciously define the
word “legislature.” Samuel Johnson defined “legislature”simply as “[t]he power that makes laws.” 2 A Dictionary
of the English Language (1st ed. 1755);ibid.(6th ed.1785);ibid.(10th ed. 1792);ibid.
(12th ed. 1802). ThomasSheridan’s dictionary defined “legislature” exactly as Dr.Johnson did: “The power that makes laws.” 2 A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1797).

 

[dcraelin]

and in a sub-note the justices say the following which I believe I also have in pic-quote form in my gallery

23
Illustrative of an embracive comprehension of the word “legislature,” Charles Pinckney explained at
South Carolina’s ratifying convention that America is “[a] republic,where the people at large, either
collectively or by representation, form the legislature.”

 

[dcraelin]

here the court goes back to Locke....p35

The people’s ultimate sovereignty had been expressed by
John Locke in 1690, a near century before the Constitu
tion’s formation:
“[T]he Legislative being only a Fiduciary Power to act
for certain ends, there remains still in the People a
Supream Power to remove or alter the Legislative,
when they find the Legislative act contrary to the
trust reposed in them. For
all Power given with trust
for the attaining an end, being limited by that end,
whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or op
posed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the
Power devolve into the hands of those that gave it,
who may place it anew where they shall think best for
their safety and security.” Two Treatises of Govern
ment §149, p. 385 (P. Laslett ed. 1964)

 

[dcraelin]

and Thomas does a good job outlining the hypocrisy of the majority judges(tho again I agree with their opinion here)

Just last week, in the antithesis of deference to state lawmaking through direct democracy, the Court cast aside state laws across the country—many of whichwere enacted through ballot in
itiative—that reflected the traditional definition of marriage. See
Obergefell v.Hodges ,ante,p. ___.
................
The Court’s lack of respect for ballot initiatives is evi-
dent not only in what it has done, but in what it has failed
to do. Just this Term, the Court repeatedly refused to review cases in which the Courts of Appeals had set aside state laws passed through ballot initiative. See,
e.g., County of Maricopa
v.
Lopez-Valenzuela
, 575 U. S. ___
(2015) (T
HOMAS
, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari)
(state constitutional amendment denying bail for illegal
aliens arrested in certain circumstances);
Herbert
v.
Kitchen
,
574 U. S. ___ (2014) (state constitutional amendment
retaining traditional definition of marriage);
Smith
v.
Bishop
, 574 U. S. ___ (2014) (same);
Rainey
v.
Bostic
, 574
U.
S. ___ (2014) (same);
Walker
v.
Wolf
, 574 U. S. ___
(2014) (same).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

And again, most on the right fail to understand this in its full, comprehensive, and correct context:

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

The rule of law, not the 'will of the people,' where when the people err and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, the Supreme Court is authorized by the Constitution to invalidate those un-Constitutional measures.

When the people err and enact measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law;

When the people err and seek to deny women their right to privacy;

When the people err and seek to deny interracial couples their right to marry;

When the people err and seek to deny citizens their right to vote;

When the people err and seek to deny immigrants their right to due process of the law.

Conservatives can't have it both ways – they can't invoke our Constitutional Republic on the one hand while demanding the 'will of the people' be 'respected' on the other when the people have in fact acted in a manner clearly in conflict with Constitutional jurisprudence.

 

[dcraelin]

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

And again, most on the right fail to understand this in its full, comprehensive, and correct context:

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

The rule of law, not the 'will of the people,' where when the people err and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, the Supreme Court is authorized by the Constitution to invalidate those un-Constitutional measures.

When the people err and enact measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law;

When the people err and seek to deny women their right to privacy;

When the people err and seek to deny interracial couples their right to marry;

When the people err and seek to deny citizens their right to vote;

When the people err and seek to deny immigrants their right to due process of the law.

Conservatives can't have it both ways – they can't invoke our Constitutional Republic on the one hand while demanding the 'will of the people' be 'respected' on the other when the people have in fact acted in a manner clearly in conflict with Constitutional jurisprudence.

your outline fails logic..

 

[Clementine]

Perhaps you're just a little too slow to understand that democracy is one component of a constitutional republic......they are not mutually exclusive.

A true democracy does not allow liberty. So, no, we are not a democracy.