Is the US a democracy?

[Harry Dresden]

Our republic is a form of democracy.

Calling the US a democracy is perfectly correct.

why does the right deny this fact?

because you have been saying the US IS A ******* DEMOCRACY PERIOD....END OF SENTENCE....it is not.....google what type of government does the US have and show us any link that says it is a Democracy period end of story.....geezus christ your a dense mother ******....

 

[Dr Grump]

Although, Harry, you would not deny it is a form of democracy, right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So then, I ask you again. What in the Constitution applies the first amendment to the states? The tenth amendment does not. The tenth amendment does not restrict the states. It says that anything that federal government doesn't have control over is granted to the states or to the people. The federal government is clearly not given any authority over religion, freedom of speech or the press. That authority is taken from the federal government. Show me where in the hell you find that a power not granted to the federal government is by default not granted to the states. That is exactly the opposite of what the Tenth Amendment says.

Finally, if states are not allowed to respect the establishment of religion then why did three of them have state religions at the time of the ratification and keep it until as late as almost 1850? How do you refute that?



Mike

Calm down..
The Tenth Amendment merely spells out that power begins with the people or the states.
The US Constitution is a limiting document.
Do not forget, while the federal government is limited by the US Constitution, so are the people and the states.
You're arguing that the US Constitution applies only to the federal government. Therefore the people and/or the states are not limited. That is not true.
This link cites "Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad in which the Court ruled that a corporation indeed did have "person" status.
HowStuffWorks "The 14th Amendment and Artificial Personhood"....
For example. The 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 gave the federal government ultimate power over the states with regard to newly freed slaves.
Others...We have in the Constitution the full faith and credit clause.
ARTICLE IV

SECTION 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
These are just two examples of where the SCOTUS and the states have given the federal government power over the states and/or the people/persons.
I think you are going down the wrong road here.
You cannot as a matter of convenience or to support a theory, choose which parts of the Constitution you wish that seem to support your view.

That is just the problem. The SCOUTS doesn't have the authority to give anyone anything. They have used "case law" as an instrument to legislate.

The states did not grant universal authority in either case. The FFAC clause granted Congress the manner of proving records across state lines. It wasn't giving congress the authority over the documents themselves but rather the burden of proof.

Im still not sure what the point you are making is.I never said that the federal government had no authority, I said it had to be enumerated by the states in the constitution.

I am not ignoring anything. You must show when the states grant certain authority or the federal does not have that authority. You have go an examples that support my stance.

And the Constitution is not a limiting document. It is a granting document. It was ratified by 13 sovereign states. They granted certain powers to the federal government. The tenth amendment is evidence (and was promised to the anti-federalists by the federalists as a condition of ratification to ensure that the federal government would not violate the sovereignty of the states.)

Mike

Is it your contention that EVERY SCOTUS ruling can be perceived as "legislation".
No. Not universal authority. That is not mentioned in those rulings.
SCOTUS is a "referee". Rulings fall one way or the other. If a ruling in effect becomes law, the legislative branch can write legislation to offset the ruling so as long as the legislation is Constitutional.
FFAC is in place to eliminate a legislative 'hodgepodge' of varying state laws.
Should we adhere to your interpretation, we'd need a driver's license for every state through or to which we wished to travel.
If a company wished to incorporate, it would have to do so in each state in order to conduct business in those other states.
The Founders created a Union made up of individual states. The states are not sovereign in the same sense as are individual nations.
Enumerated powers. Yes. We agree because that is sated in the Tenth Amendment.
However, the federal government is limited by the Constitution, not handcuffed.
Yes, the Constitution IS a limiting document. It's stated several times in fact.
The federal government's authority is limited by the what is NOT in the document. Not by what IS in it.
Nowhere can one find "the federal government "may" or "should" NOT. The Framers were wise to make that issue abundantly clear.
Simply put, where ever the Constitution is silent on an issue, the federal government has not the authority to do so.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Somewhere you got confused. The whole point was that the Constitution does not apply the first amendment to the states. The Constitution applies it to Congress, not the states. How is that lost?

Mike

There you go again.
This comment of your's

contradicts


your last comment.

When have I suggested a State can run contrary to the Constitution? I haven't.

Once again. Congress shall create no law... How is that NOT self explanatory?

Furthermore, how were 3 states allowed to have state religions (respecting the establishment of a religion) even after the first Amendment was ratified? If I am wrong why did they let the states keep their religion?

I can't believe this is arguable.


Mike

And once again a state cannot violate the rights of a citizen. You may want to check yourself on that. The supreme court has ruled they aren't enforceable.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Although, Harry, you would not deny it is a form of democracy, right?

i have been telling her that Doc along with a few others.....look at my posts.....she started off saying its a Democracy period.....then after pages of arguing she then changed her story.....i defy anyone here to find any text anywhere saying the US is just a Democracy.....not a form of Democracy.....called a Federal Constitutional Republic.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Although, Harry, you would not deny it is a form of democracy, right?

Australia is a form also right Doc?.....is not Oz a federal parliamentary democracy?

 

[Texanmike]

Calm down..
The Tenth Amendment merely spells out that power begins with the people or the states.
The US Constitution is a limiting document.
Do not forget, while the federal government is limited by the US Constitution, so are the people and the states.
You're arguing that the US Constitution applies only to the federal government. Therefore the people and/or the states are not limited. That is not true.
This link cites "Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad in which the Court ruled that a corporation indeed did have "person" status.
HowStuffWorks "The 14th Amendment and Artificial Personhood"....
For example. The 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 gave the federal government ultimate power over the states with regard to newly freed slaves.
Others...We have in the Constitution the full faith and credit clause.
ARTICLE IV

SECTION 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
These are just two examples of where the SCOTUS and the states have given the federal government power over the states and/or the people/persons.
I think you are going down the wrong road here.
You cannot as a matter of convenience or to support a theory, choose which parts of the Constitution you wish that seem to support your view.

That is just the problem. The SCOUTS doesn't have the authority to give anyone anything. They have used "case law" as an instrument to legislate.

The states did not grant universal authority in either case. The FFAC clause granted Congress the manner of proving records across state lines. It wasn't giving congress the authority over the documents themselves but rather the burden of proof.

Im still not sure what the point you are making is.I never said that the federal government had no authority, I said it had to be enumerated by the states in the constitution.

I am not ignoring anything. You must show when the states grant certain authority or the federal does not have that authority. You have go an examples that support my stance.

And the Constitution is not a limiting document. It is a granting document. It was ratified by 13 sovereign states. They granted certain powers to the federal government. The tenth amendment is evidence (and was promised to the anti-federalists by the federalists as a condition of ratification to ensure that the federal government would not violate the sovereignty of the states.)

Mike

Is it your contention that EVERY SCOTUS ruling can be perceived as "legislation".

The problem is that using "legal doctrines" of "case law precedence" and "stare decisis" the SCOTUS has found a way to legislate. Look at opinions of SCOTUS. They do not deal with the original document, they deal with opinions of previous SCOTUS about original documents. They might even deal with 3rd or 4th generation views of original documents. While it is not called "law", it might as well be.

No. Not universal authority. That is not mentioned in those rulings.
SCOTUS is a "referee". Rulings fall one way or the other. If a ruling in effect becomes law, the legislative branch can write legislation to offset the ruling so as long as the legislation is Constitutional.

You don't see the vicious circle you create there? A ruling carries with it the weight of law unless the legislation rights something contrary to the ruling which codifies a new law. Of course if the SCOTUS doesn't like it they just find it "unconstitutional". One of the inherent flaws of the Constitution that needs to be closed is the SCOTUS needs to be held accountable to the States who should have the ability to recall justices.. (that is a discussion for a different thread).

FFAC is in place to eliminate a legislative 'hodgepodge' of varying state laws.
Should we adhere to your interpretation, we'd need a driver's license for every state through or to which we wished to travel.

No that is not true (about the driver's licenses). FFAC makes things like identification, criminal status, judgements etc valid across state lines. Even if you didn't include driver's licenses they would likely be handled like CHL are today, through reciprocity agreements, and not create a need for 50 different ones. FFAC was actually put into place so that (as happened under the AoC) an individual could not be found guilty or a judgement against them, skip to another state and start over with out fear that they would be forced to complete the judgement or sentence.

If a company wished to incorporate, it would have to do so in each state in order to conduct business in those other states.
The Founders created a Union made up of individual states. The states are not sovereign in the same sense as are individual nations.

To what degree do you find sovereignty. The founders (who didn't agree on everything) got together and decided on what powers the states were willing to grant the federal government.

The Constitution is not a document which says something to the effect of "Congress may not legislate marriage or drug laws". It [g]grants[/b] specific legislative authority to Congress. The Executive branch is not granted unlimited authority, it is granted the authority to carry out the laws prescribed by Congress.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The aforementioned does not "limit" Congress' vast power, it grants it limited power. More correctly it grants it authority to create laws that are needed to execute its defined authority. I don't know the reason (though I can explain the events that led to it) that the "necessary and proper clause" became referred to as the "elastic clause" because it is pretty plainly limited by "the foregoing powers.."

Enumerated powers. Yes. We agree because that is sated in the Tenth Amendment.
However, the federal government is limited by the Constitution, not handcuffed.

The federal government is created by the document. The Constitution does not limit the authority of the all omni-powerful federal government... it grants the federal government certain (supposed to be-) strictly adhered to authorities.

Yes, the Constitution IS a limiting document. It's stated several times in fact.

Would you care to cite these or at least point me in the right direction?

The federal government's authority is limited by the what is NOT in the document. Not by what IS in it.
Nowhere can one find "the federal government "may" or "should" NOT. The Framers were wise to make that issue abundantly clear.

You don't find "the federal government....." period. The reason for that is simple. The federal government is not to act as one, large, unimpeded body. Instead the authority of the federal government is addressed by branch:
Congress will be made up of...
Congressmen shall meet these requirements...
Congress shall have the authority to....

Simply put, where ever the Constitution is silent on an issue, the federal government has not the authority to do so.

This last sentence is exactly correct. Reading it makes me wonder who wrote the rest of the post.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

There you go again.
This comment of your's

contradicts


your last comment.

Once again. Congress shall create no law... How is that NOT self explanatory?

Furthermore, how were 3 states allowed to have state religions (respecting the establishment of a religion) even after the first Amendment was ratified? If I am wrong why did they let the states keep their religion?

I can't believe this is arguable.


Mike

And once again a state cannot violate the rights of a citizen. You may want to check yourself on that. The supreme court has ruled they aren't enforceable.

Care to show me where the supreme court ruled that they weren't enforceable? They didn't. It wasn't until MUCH later that SCOTUS began this nonsense.

And I'm not in favor of an official state religion, personally. I just don't care what they do in other states. I do not feel the need to interfere with other states lives that much. If you want a state religion, rock on. If not... rock on too.

Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Once again. Congress shall create no law... How is that NOT self explanatory?

Furthermore, how were 3 states allowed to have state religions (respecting the establishment of a religion) even after the first Amendment was ratified? If I am wrong why did they let the states keep their religion?

I can't believe this is arguable.


Mike

And once again a state cannot violate the rights of a citizen. You may want to check yourself on that. The supreme court has ruled they aren't enforceable.

Care to show me where the supreme court ruled that they weren't enforceable? They didn't. It wasn't until MUCH later that SCOTUS began this nonsense.

And I'm not in favor of an official state religion, personally. I just don't care what they do in other states. I do not feel the need to interfere with other states lives that much. If you want a state religion, rock on. If not... rock on too.

Mike

Damn dude

Care to show me where the supreme court ruled that they weren't enforceable? They didn't. It wasn't until MUCH later that SCOTUS began this nonsense.

You're drifting away from your first claim So I'll pull you back. The states cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution

 

[Texanmike]

And once again a state cannot violate the rights of a citizen. You may want to check yourself on that. The supreme court has ruled they aren't enforceable.

Care to show me where the supreme court ruled that they weren't enforceable? They didn't. It wasn't until MUCH later that SCOTUS began this nonsense.

And I'm not in favor of an official state religion, personally. I just don't care what they do in other states. I do not feel the need to interfere with other states lives that much. If you want a state religion, rock on. If not... rock on too.

Mike

Damn dude

Care to show me where the supreme court ruled that they weren't enforceable? They didn't. It wasn't until MUCH later that SCOTUS began this nonsense.

You're drifting away from your first claim So I'll pull you back. The states cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution

I never said they can. I said that the Constitution does not apply itself to the states in this matter. Do you read what I actually say or are you having an argument in the vaccuum? Seriously, I never said anything like that. I said that the first amendment does not apply to the states because it does not include them. I also said that the fact that three state churches existed after the first amendment was ratified is proof that the amendment did not apply to the states.

You then came up with some notion that they were shot down by the supreme court. They weren't. I asked you for proof and you never gave any.

This is the problem with our country. People like you cannot examine a document and decide for yourself what it means. Your opinions all represent the long train of abuses of the Constitution. In order to arrive at the conclusion that you arrive at you must first establish that the Constitution and all of the Amendments do not mean what they said upon ratification but rather they mean the most loose interpretation that you are able to arrive at today. Then you need a SCOTUS who is not accountable to the people to broaden the definition of each word or idea. If you have several generations of broadening you arrive at a point in which when another person asks you for evidence you can present your evidence in two or three words.

When I asked you what evidence you had, you spouted "14th amendment". You do not give rhyme or reason, instead it is understoood that you are free to interpret the 14th amendment in any way you please. It is as if I did not ask you "how do you prove your assertion" but rather "what do you think you can slip your assertion into".

Oh well, is est ut is est.

Mike

 

[Peach]

Care to show me where the supreme court ruled that they weren't enforceable? They didn't. It wasn't until MUCH later that SCOTUS began this nonsense.

And I'm not in favor of an official state religion, personally. I just don't care what they do in other states. I do not feel the need to interfere with other states lives that much. If you want a state religion, rock on. If not... rock on too.

Mike

Damn dude

Care to show me where the supreme court ruled that they weren't enforceable? They didn't. It wasn't until MUCH later that SCOTUS began this nonsense.

You're drifting away from your first claim So I'll pull you back. The states cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution

I never said they can. I said that the Constitution does not apply itself to the states in this matter. Do you read what I actually say or are you having an argument in the vaccuum? Seriously, I never said anything like that. I said that the first amendment does not apply to the states because it does not include them. I also said that the fact that three state churches existed after the first amendment was ratified is proof that the amendment did not apply to the states.

You then came up with some notion that they were shot down by the supreme court. They weren't. I asked you for proof and you never gave any.

This is the problem with our country. People like you cannot examine a document and decide for yourself what it means. Your opinions all represent the long train of abuses of the Constitution. In order to arrive at the conclusion that you arrive at you must first establish that the Constitution and all of the Amendments do not mean what they said upon ratification but rather they mean the most loose interpretation that you are able to arrive at today. Then you need a SCOTUS who is not accountable to the people to broaden the definition of each word or idea. If you have several generations of broadening you arrive at a point in which when another person asks you for evidence you can present your evidence in two or three words.

When I asked you what evidence you had, you spouted "14th amendment". You do not give rhyme or reason, instead it is understoood that you are free to interpret the 14th amendment in any way you please. It is as if I did not ask you "how do you prove your assertion" but rather "what do you think you can slip your assertion into".

Oh well, is est ut is est.

Mike

Constitutional republic with representative democracy.
***********************************************

 

[Texanmike]

I don't deny that our form of government is a Democracy. The problem I have is that "Democracy" is not descriptive enough.
Calling a representative republic a Democracy is like calling baseball a game. Football is a game too but both are not played by the same rules.

Well, that puts us pretty much in agreement. Of course you can't say anything complete about the U.S. government by calling it a democracy; there is much more specific detail to go into in order to describe it properly.

I do find that some people like to insist that we're "a republic, not a democracy," though. It's a fairly common line in certain right-wing circles, and what they imply by it, whether they will admit it or not, is that they want a government restricted to rule by the "better" people and denying an effective voice to the great unwashed. That's what I can't agree with.

I read the book in your link. Wrong direction. We need to restrict voting, not expand it.

Mike

 

[Truthmatters]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


there you have it folks.

They dont want the American people picking their own reps.

No democracy is what they want.

They want to PICK for us who represents us.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Care to show me where the supreme court ruled that they weren't enforceable? They didn't. It wasn't until MUCH later that SCOTUS began this nonsense.

And I'm not in favor of an official state religion, personally. I just don't care what they do in other states. I do not feel the need to interfere with other states lives that much. If you want a state religion, rock on. If not... rock on too.

Mike

Damn dude

Care to show me where the supreme court ruled that they weren't enforceable? They didn't. It wasn't until MUCH later that SCOTUS began this nonsense.

You're drifting away from your first claim So I'll pull you back. The states cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution

I never said they can. I said that the Constitution does not apply itself to the states in this matter. Do you read what I actually say or are you having an argument in the vaccuum? Seriously, I never said anything like that. I said that the first amendment does not apply to the states because it does not include them. I also said that the fact that three state churches existed after the first amendment was ratified is proof that the amendment did not apply to the states.

You then came up with some notion that they were shot down by the supreme court. They weren't. I asked you for proof and you never gave any.

This is the problem with our country. People like you cannot examine a document and decide for yourself what it means. Your opinions all represent the long train of abuses of the Constitution. In order to arrive at the conclusion that you arrive at you must first establish that the Constitution and all of the Amendments do not mean what they said upon ratification but rather they mean the most loose interpretation that you are able to arrive at today. Then you need a SCOTUS who is not accountable to the people to broaden the definition of each word or idea. If you have several generations of broadening you arrive at a point in which when another person asks you for evidence you can present your evidence in two or three words.

When I asked you what evidence you had, you spouted "14th amendment". You do not give rhyme or reason, instead it is understoood that you are free to interpret the 14th amendment in any way you please. It is as if I did not ask you "how do you prove your assertion" but rather "what do you think you can slip your assertion into".

Oh well, is est ut is est.

Mike

I never said they can.

Yes you are. The U.S Constitution applies to state government as well as the federal level.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


there you have it folks.

They dont want the American people picking their own reps.

No democracy is what they want.

They want to PICK for us who represents us.

Who are they, you hack?

 

[Texanmike]

Damn dude



You're drifting away from your first claim So I'll pull you back. The states cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution

I never said they can. I said that the Constitution does not apply itself to the states in this matter. Do you read what I actually say or are you having an argument in the vaccuum? Seriously, I never said anything like that. I said that the first amendment does not apply to the states because it does not include them. I also said that the fact that three state churches existed after the first amendment was ratified is proof that the amendment did not apply to the states.

You then came up with some notion that they were shot down by the supreme court. They weren't. I asked you for proof and you never gave any.

This is the problem with our country. People like you cannot examine a document and decide for yourself what it means. Your opinions all represent the long train of abuses of the Constitution. In order to arrive at the conclusion that you arrive at you must first establish that the Constitution and all of the Amendments do not mean what they said upon ratification but rather they mean the most loose interpretation that you are able to arrive at today. Then you need a SCOTUS who is not accountable to the people to broaden the definition of each word or idea. If you have several generations of broadening you arrive at a point in which when another person asks you for evidence you can present your evidence in two or three words.

When I asked you what evidence you had, you spouted "14th amendment". You do not give rhyme or reason, instead it is understoood that you are free to interpret the 14th amendment in any way you please. It is as if I did not ask you "how do you prove your assertion" but rather "what do you think you can slip your assertion into".

Oh well, is est ut is est.

Mike

I never said they can.

Yes you are. The U.S Constitution applies to state government as well as the federal level.

Explain yourself. Prove yourself. Don't sit there and just declare yourself correct without proof.

Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I never said they can. I said that the Constitution does not apply itself to the states in this matter. Do you read what I actually say or are you having an argument in the vaccuum? Seriously, I never said anything like that. I said that the first amendment does not apply to the states because it does not include them. I also said that the fact that three state churches existed after the first amendment was ratified is proof that the amendment did not apply to the states.

You then came up with some notion that they were shot down by the supreme court. They weren't. I asked you for proof and you never gave any.

This is the problem with our country. People like you cannot examine a document and decide for yourself what it means. Your opinions all represent the long train of abuses of the Constitution. In order to arrive at the conclusion that you arrive at you must first establish that the Constitution and all of the Amendments do not mean what they said upon ratification but rather they mean the most loose interpretation that you are able to arrive at today. Then you need a SCOTUS who is not accountable to the people to broaden the definition of each word or idea. If you have several generations of broadening you arrive at a point in which when another person asks you for evidence you can present your evidence in two or three words.

When I asked you what evidence you had, you spouted "14th amendment". You do not give rhyme or reason, instead it is understoood that you are free to interpret the 14th amendment in any way you please. It is as if I did not ask you "how do you prove your assertion" but rather "what do you think you can slip your assertion into".

Oh well, is est ut is est.

Mike

I never said they can.

Yes you are. The U.S Constitution applies to state government as well as the federal level.

Explain yourself. Prove yourself. Don't sit there and just declare yourself correct without proof.

Mike

Explain myself? It's common knowledge basic civics maybe you should take a few classes.
What is there to prove? 200 + years is evidence enough. The states law cannot supersede The Supreme law of the land.

 

[peach174]

The Majority of this Nation wants the Federal Government restricted by the Constitution. They are ignoring it right now.
Our 26th amendment is still in place TM, it wont be going bye, bye.
Although I do see why some want to restrict those who are on the government tits. It's called bribery for votes and that should be illegal.
Because the Constitution is being ignored we now have a Snob rule of Government Elite's in both parties.

 

[Harry Dresden]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


there you have it folks.

They dont want the American people picking their own reps.

No democracy is what they want.

They want to PICK for us who represents us.

Who are they, you hack?

even she does not know who THEY are Reb.....i have asked her every time i see her say this....see just ignores the question....so i assume,even she does not know who THEY are.....

 

[Truthmatters]

The wealthy people who OWN the republican party you fools