Is Congress really necessary?
- Thread starter counterpoint
- Start date
Clearly, you see how bad that is working out with Barry. Watch out for low flying drones.
OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
CaliforniaGirl doesn't want a pure democracy because she thinks everyone is too dumb. She either thinks she's dumb, or she thinks most people are dumb and she's just lucky.
I don't want a pure democracy because I don't believe everyone has enough time to read through all proposed legislation and make an informed vote. Its enough for me to understand what the half dozen or so proposed constitutional amendments are every time I show up to vote.
That's your biggest issue with pure democracy?
How about the tyranny of the majority? Baptists make up the largest block of people in this country by a wide margin...............
OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
That's your biggest issue with pure democracy?
How about the tyranny of the majority? Baptists make up the largest block of people in this country by a wide margin...............
Baptists are not a majority.
The majority can only be tyrants if they don't have a Constitution. Has nothing to do with how big their legislative body is. By that logic, any state with referendum elections are subject to the "tyranny of the majority".
That's your biggest issue with pure democracy?
How about the tyranny of the majority? Baptists make up the largest block of people in this country by a wide margin...............
Baptists are not a majority.
The majority can only be tyrants if they don't have a Constitution. Has nothing to do with how big their legislative body is. By that logic, any state with referendum elections are subject to the "tyranny of the majority".
I don't know where you've been but the largest single religious (and overall) demographic in the country is baptist.
Baptists in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you think a constitutional republic will continue to exist in a pure democracy then you don't understand the dynamics (and definition) of a pure democracy.
California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,059
- 0
- Banned
- #27
Interesting... when exactly did you tap into my brain to discover what I 'think'? You do realize that you are making yourself look ridiculous with such bullshit, right?
Idiot.
I don't like pure democracy - because it equates to mob rule. Not overly complicated... no one needs to 'interpret' it for the stupid. I have dumbed it down sufficiently that even you can understand it.
Like I said, "pointless to argue with someone who insists everyone accept their definition".
Representative republic. We elect representatives rather than functioning as a pure democracy, and with good reason.
Ernie S.
Diamond Member
And we democratically elect our representatives. Semantics are there for all to play with.
Now the above is a perfect example of a distinction without a difference.
Who CHOOSES those representatives?
The DEMOS.
Hence the tern DEMOcratic Republic.
Seriously...how can you not know this?
Last edited:
It most defiantly is our educational system.
They are not teaching that our government and the constitution guarantees us a Republic form of government.
Nor are they teaching why it should be a republic.
A Republic
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 IndividualÂ’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.
The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of AmericaÂ’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to AmericaÂ’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John AdamsÂ’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the peopleÂ’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The IndividualÂ’s rights--to endanger the peopleÂ’s liberties.
With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
THIS IS NOT BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS.
Support Public Financing of Elections.
Sure it is. You're just mad that people don't see it all your way. I blame that on the "original intent" fraudsters. You'd think adults would realize that there could be no such thing, since it implies that they had the same intent. If adults are that confused, no wonder some kids aren't getting the message.
Leweman
Platinum Member
- Aug 5, 2010
- 7,060
- 3,819
- 955
Wouldn't that just give the media MORE power to shape the debate and carry out their agenda for one side or another by choosing who to investigate and which facts to report and which facts to ignore. That gives an even smaller portion of the electorate even more power.
I am not mad or angry. It is not my way.
Original intent means it is looking at all of the ideology and papers and writings. It does not imply that they all had the same intent.
No one who ever studies our history would ever say something like that.
Our constitution says it not me.
This is what is wrong with the lefty ideology, that there are no facts, that they are just opinion's, that there is No Absolutes - For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
Article IV.
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.
A Republican form of government is a small government, not a big huge government like the one we have right now.
Last edited:
OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
That's your biggest issue with pure democracy?
How about the tyranny of the majority? Baptists make up the largest block of people in this country by a wide margin...............
Baptists are not a majority.
The majority can only be tyrants if they don't have a Constitution. Has nothing to do with how big their legislative body is. By that logic, any state with referendum elections are subject to the "tyranny of the majority".
I don't know where you've been but the largest single religious (and overall) demographic in the country is baptist.
Baptists in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That doesn't make them a majority. Do you know what the word "majority" means?
You can't explain or justify your statement.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Jake Tapper — Joe Biden was absolutely convinced Donald Trump was going to jail.- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 0
-
Zone1 When your single mom hates the police, the school hates police, and- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 1
-
Libs in Worcester, Massachusetts obstruct ICE during arrest of illegal alien woman- Started by Mac-7
- Replies: 10
-
Gabbard slams 'politically motivated' surveillance as effort to 'intimidate' her following criticism of Harris- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 2
