Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You have reading comprehension issues, obviously. I suggest you read what the OP actually says.
However, a direct democracy is a system that facilitates oppression of minorities.
From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....[Emphasis added]
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.
Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.
Well, it's the manifesto of the OWS, posted in many places. I can't say if the OWS manifesto will change, yet again, but that is the current one.You have reading comprehension issues, obviously. I suggest you read what the OP actually says.
Of course, you just want to talk about the diction used on blogs today. That's an order of magnitude more inane than I thought the OP was.
Any other blog posts use words that made you angry today? Bonus points if it also confirmed your suspicion that you're the only one left who loves America and the Constitution.
Maybe not necessarily, but a constitutional republic does not facilitate oppression of minorities as a direct democracy does.However, a direct democracy is a system that facilitates oppression of minorities.
Not necessarily. That's only true if it is implemented without any constitutional checks resembling the Bill of Rights. And the same is true of a representative democracy, or for that matter any sort of government. Nazi Germany, for example, was hardly a democracy (of any kind), but neither was it protective of the rights of minorities.
To protect minorities is one reason we must place safeguards on government. It really has little do with the question of democracy, pro- or anti-.
Rather, I support our (apparently more and more, MY) Constitution.
That document protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Deal with it.
Rather, I support our (apparently more and more, MY) Constitution.From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....[Emphasis added]
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.
Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.
I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.
Interesting indeed.
Just the way I am. I like our Constitution.
Others' mileages vary, obviously.
Rather, I support our (apparently more and more, MY) Constitution.
That document protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Deal with it.
And if you break the law and stop traffic it rises to a level of insurrection.
DEAL WITH IT.
From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....[Emphasis added]
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.
Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.
I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.
Interesting indeed.
That document protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Deal with it.
And if you break the law and stop traffic it rises to a level of insurrection.
DEAL WITH IT.
The priviledge of driving is not a protected right.
Free speech is.
DEAL WITH IT.
From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....[Emphasis added]
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.
Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.
You have a guy in Obama's neighborhood called Ayers. Ayers is a huge assistant to a man called Hugo Chavez. Oh and Ayers adopted son of another terrorist called Chesa is also an adviser to El Blockhead.
Oh and the Bolivar Revolution called for direct democracy.
Funny how things link up in the end n'est pas?
Well, the point of my OP is that a direct democracy is prima facie inconsistent with our Constitution. Because of that, those who support a group who advocates unconstitutional ideals may want to consider a few facts.Rather, I support our (apparently more and more, MY) Constitution.I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.
Interesting indeed.
Just the way I am. I like our Constitution.
Others' mileages vary, obviously.
Again..that was not the point.
....
I do know that I am fascinating, but I am not the topic, nor are anyone's fantasies about my views..... But I am reasonably sure there are parts of the Constitution you do not like.
And if you break the law and stop traffic it rises to a level of insurrection.
DEAL WITH IT.
The priviledge of driving is not a protected right.
Free speech is.
DEAL WITH IT.
DO YOU HAVE YOUR STUPID CAP ON TODAY? Traffic is commerce, but thanks for playing.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The priviledge of driving is not a protected right.
Free speech is.
DEAL WITH IT.
DO YOU HAVE YOUR STUPID CAP ON TODAY? Traffic is commerce, but thanks for playing.
Do you have your stupid cap on?
Congress is charged with "regulating" commerce.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Seriously man..you make this to easy.
For the very same reasons the left is gunning for the Electoral College.From the 'manifesto', at least the most recent one, of the OWS:
....[Emphasis added]
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Our Founding Fathers created a country and a Constitution that is based on a political system called a constitutional republic. They were wise enough to know that direct democracies historically don't fare well.
Fact of the matter is, calling for a direct democracy is inconsistent with our Constitution. For those who have taken an oath to preserve our Constitution, I hope they remember these facts.
I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.
Interesting indeed.
Every American Should Oppose Direct Democracy. How long do you think it would have taken to pass Civil Rights in a Direct Democracy?
This Country was set up the way it was for a reason. Direct Democracy gives the 51% Majority tyrannical Power over the Rest on every issue. If you actually think that would be a good system, you are an idiot.
For the very same reasons the left is gunning for the Electoral College.I find it fascinating those that oppose direct democracy are the very same people that say a majority of Americans support their causes.
Interesting indeed.
Every American Should Oppose Direct Democracy. How long do you think it would have taken to pass Civil Rights in a Direct Democracy?
This Country was set up the way it was for a reason. Direct Democracy gives the 51% Majority tyrannical Power over the Rest on every issue. If you actually think that would be a good system, you are an idiot.
As the op stated? The Founders were very wise men.
