Senate's 46 Dems Got 20 Million More Votes Than Its 54 Republicans

[martybegan]

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

Didn't the Senate originally represent the legislature of each state, which represented the majority of said State, be it by direct population or by county breakup?

All the 17th did was skip the middleman, which does result in senators that can be from a different party than that of the legislature.

 

[RKMBrown]

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

ROFL where do you get this shit?

Our government is a Federal Constitutional Republic.

representative democracy is the method of lawmaking we use, as per our constitution, and the constitutions of the various States.

You say, "our government is a Federal Constitutional Republic." I would say it started as a Federal Constitutional Republic and has been heading to a Federal Democracy ever since.

You say, "representative democracy is the method of lawmaking we use, as per our constitution, and the constitutions of the various States." I say the federal constitution has been radically changed thus fundamentally changing the method of our lawmaking to a dominant federal system ruled by our sitting president through his department of injustice.

I agree that federalism has been weakened, and we currently have too strong of an executive branch that is filled with unaccountable bureaucrats. However, the original system is still in place, it has just been corrupted by a combination of activist judges, complacent citizens, and overzealous executives and said executive's minions.

The original system is not in place. Not even close.

Instead of a constitution that protects our life, liberty, and property, we now have a Constitution that takes our life, liberty, property, and labor/income.

One act at a time every single thing we do, every single action, from cradle to grave, is being regulated by this federal government. Each Act that passes in DC usurps liberty. Each Act that passes in DC whittles away at the memory of our republic. Each Act gives DC more power over us. Each Act takes more of our labor/income to fund. Each Act usurps more of our property. Each Act that is supported by the 16th and 14th amendment due process clause for managing "commerce" for example, is taking away our ability to live, work, and have prosperous lives.

Let's face it. DC has become our enemy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who cares what the founders intended? This is the 21st century.

Who cares about our Freedoms eh?

Your rights are protected by the federal government that you RWnuts despise.

Our rights are protected under the Constitution, it's government that needs to abide under those articles of powers dictated to them.

Wrong. They used to be protect our rights, see the 14th amendment and 16th amendment, for now the Constitution has been re-written to explicitly take away our rights to life, liberty, property, and income.

The 14th Amendment was established under the guidelines given under the Constitution, not a judge making an attempt to write legislation which it wasn't granted specific powers to do so. We have an equal separation of powers, and specific constitutional rules dictating procedures for legislation and ratification,. It's all found within its Articles written by our Founders, how our government is to function.

That's a lie. The 14th Amendment was passed only through threat of death at the point of cannons.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

Didn't the Senate originally represent the legislature of each state, which represented the majority of said State, be it by direct population or by county breakup?

All the 17th did was skip the middleman, which does result in senators that can be from a different party than that of the legislature.

Yes, senators were originally beholding to the state legislatures. Now they are beholding to the majority vote for their state. Skip the middle man? sigh... You have an incorrect assumption about the makeup of the state legislatures who are beholding to all districts of the various states, including the minority districts. We would not have ACA if the senators were beholding to the state legislatures.

 

[martybegan]

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

Didn't the Senate originally represent the legislature of each state, which represented the majority of said State, be it by direct population or by county breakup?

All the 17th did was skip the middleman, which does result in senators that can be from a different party than that of the legislature.

Yes, senators were originally beholding to the state legislatures. Now they are beholding to the majority vote for their state. Skip the middle man? sigh... You have an incorrect assumption about the makeup of the state legislatures who are beholding to all districts of the various states, including the minority districts. We would not have ACA if the senators were beholding to the state legislatures.

Theoretically the majority of the State should be represented in the state legislature, unless the electorate is so split as to take county splits in to account via an upper house that is not directly proportioned.

I understand a desire to go back to the old way, however I don't see a repeal of the 17th happening anytime soon.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Then get out. Move to canada.

That's because we are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
Senators represent their States, the House represents their people from each State.

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

With due respect, our nation is a Republic NOT a Democracy.


"The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government."

- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

source: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

 

[martybegan]

Who cares about our Freedoms eh?

Your rights are protected by the federal government that you RWnuts despise.

Our rights are protected under the Constitution, it's government that needs to abide under those articles of powers dictated to them.

Wrong. They used to be protect our rights, see the 14th amendment and 16th amendment, for now the Constitution has been re-written to explicitly take away our rights to life, liberty, property, and income.

The 14th Amendment was established under the guidelines given under the Constitution, not a judge making an attempt to write legislation which it wasn't granted specific powers to do so. We have an equal separation of powers, and specific constitutional rules dictating procedures for legislation and ratification,. It's all found within its Articles written by our Founders, how our government is to function.

That's a lie. The 14th Amendment was passed only through threat of death at the point of cannons.

That's what the South got for the whole pesky "rebellion" thing, and for indicating they would do an end run around the 13th amendment.

 

[RKMBrown]

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

Didn't the Senate originally represent the legislature of each state, which represented the majority of said State, be it by direct population or by county breakup?

All the 17th did was skip the middleman, which does result in senators that can be from a different party than that of the legislature.

Yes, senators were originally beholding to the state legislatures. Now they are beholding to the majority vote for their state. Skip the middle man? sigh... You have an incorrect assumption about the makeup of the state legislatures who are beholding to all districts of the various states, including the minority districts. We would not have ACA if the senators were beholding to the state legislatures.

Theoretically the majority of the State should be represented in the state legislature, unless the electorate is so split as to take county splits in to account via an upper house that is not directly proportioned.

I understand a desire to go back to the old way, however I don't see a repeal of the 17th happening anytime soon.

No. Each state legislature represents the ENTIRE State. Don't all states also have a senate and a house. They have in the states I've lived in.

Yes, I don't see us repealing the due process clause, the 16th, or 17th amendment. Why would DC want to give up their power over us? We will have to take it back by force.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The happy dance that the GOP keeps doing over the 2014 elections may not be a great idea. They'll have to defend more seats in 2016 and then there's that little presidential election. This country looks 50/50 right now.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are a democracy because the power to change the Constitution still rests in the hands of the People, which is what a democracy is.

The assumption that a state with a small population should have its People be given disproportionate power in the federal government makes no sense,

but the nature of the colonies in the 18th century made the task of uniting them one that required some ultimately nonsensical contrivances.

With due respect, our nation is a Republic NOT a Democracy.


"The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government."

- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

source: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your rights are protected by the federal government that you RWnuts despise.

Our rights are protected under the Constitution, it's government that needs to abide under those articles of powers dictated to them.

Wrong. They used to be protect our rights, see the 14th amendment and 16th amendment, for now the Constitution has been re-written to explicitly take away our rights to life, liberty, property, and income.

The 14th Amendment was established under the guidelines given under the Constitution, not a judge making an attempt to write legislation which it wasn't granted specific powers to do so. We have an equal separation of powers, and specific constitutional rules dictating procedures for legislation and ratification,. It's all found within its Articles written by our Founders, how our government is to function.

That's a lie. The 14th Amendment was passed only through threat of death at the point of cannons.

That's what the South got for the whole pesky "rebellion" thing, and for indicating they would do an end run around the 13th amendment.

Ayup. Our government declared itself slave owner of every man woman and child to make sure no one could own a slave besides them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All 'democracy' means (the actual word) is a government where the power resides with the people. demo - cracy.

Look it up.

 

[RKMBrown]

With due respect, our nation is a Republic NOT a Democracy.


"The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government."

- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

source: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

While democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms that does not mean a republic is simply a representative democracy. You are a person, yes? Person and female are not mutually exclusive, yes? That does not mean a person is simply a female, correct? There are at least two types of people, yes? females, males, and other, correct?

Europeans are females, America started out as a male and has been operated on, so that now we are an "other."

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

While democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms that does not mean a republic is simply a representative democracy. You are a person, yes? Person and female are not mutually exclusive, yes? That does not mean a person is simply a female, correct? There are at least two types of people, yes? females, males, and other, correct?

Europeans are females, America started out as a male and has been operated on, so that now we are an "other."

The power resides with the People. That's what makes a democracy. The right of the people to vote, either directly for inititatives, or to elect representatives.

 

[martybegan]

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

Didn't the Senate originally represent the legislature of each state, which represented the majority of said State, be it by direct population or by county breakup?

All the 17th did was skip the middleman, which does result in senators that can be from a different party than that of the legislature.

Yes, senators were originally beholding to the state legislatures. Now they are beholding to the majority vote for their state. Skip the middle man? sigh... You have an incorrect assumption about the makeup of the state legislatures who are beholding to all districts of the various states, including the minority districts. We would not have ACA if the senators were beholding to the state legislatures.

Theoretically the majority of the State should be represented in the state legislature, unless the electorate is so split as to take county splits in to account via an upper house that is not directly proportioned.

I understand a desire to go back to the old way, however I don't see a repeal of the 17th happening anytime soon.

No. Each state legislature represents the ENTIRE State. Don't all states also have a senate and a house. They have in the states I've lived in.

Yes, I don't see us repealing the due process clause, the 16th, or 17th amendment. Why would DC want to give up their power over us? We will have to take it back by force.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

Didn't the Senate originally represent the legislature of each state, which represented the majority of said State, be it by direct population or by county breakup?

All the 17th did was skip the middleman, which does result in senators that can be from a different party than that of the legislature.

Yes, senators were originally beholding to the state legislatures. Now they are beholding to the majority vote for their state. Skip the middle man? sigh... You have an incorrect assumption about the makeup of the state legislatures who are beholding to all districts of the various states, including the minority districts. We would not have ACA if the senators were beholding to the state legislatures.

Theoretically the majority of the State should be represented in the state legislature, unless the electorate is so split as to take county splits in to account via an upper house that is not directly proportioned.

I understand a desire to go back to the old way, however I don't see a repeal of the 17th happening anytime soon.

No. Each state legislature represents the ENTIRE State. Don't all states also have a senate and a house. They have in the states I've lived in.

Yes, I don't see us repealing the due process clause, the 16th, or 17th amendment. Why would DC want to give up their power over us? We will have to take it back by force.

Nebraska is unicameral.

I see the 14th amendment as necessary, but misused. If it didn't exist NY would have a basis for denying me 2nd amendment rights, as opposed to now, where they have none, but do it anyway.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

While democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms that does not mean a republic is simply a representative democracy. You are a person, yes? Person and female are not mutually exclusive, yes? That does not mean a person is simply a female, correct? There are at least two types of people, yes? females, males, and other, correct?

Europeans are females, America started out as a male and has been operated on, so that now we are an "other."

The power resides with the People. That's what makes a democracy. The right of the people to vote, either directly for inititatives, or to elect representatives.

The people's power it tempered by a document, that's what makes it a constitutional republic.

 

[martybegan]

Our rights are protected under the Constitution, it's government that needs to abide under those articles of powers dictated to them.

Wrong. They used to be protect our rights, see the 14th amendment and 16th amendment, for now the Constitution has been re-written to explicitly take away our rights to life, liberty, property, and income.

The 14th Amendment was established under the guidelines given under the Constitution, not a judge making an attempt to write legislation which it wasn't granted specific powers to do so. We have an equal separation of powers, and specific constitutional rules dictating procedures for legislation and ratification,. It's all found within its Articles written by our Founders, how our government is to function.

That's a lie. The 14th Amendment was passed only through threat of death at the point of cannons.

That's what the South got for the whole pesky "rebellion" thing, and for indicating they would do an end run around the 13th amendment.

Ayup. Our government declared itself slave owner of every man woman and child to make sure no one could own a slave besides them.

The intent was to pass down the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights to people in the States. The result has been to limit freedoms as well, based on a sense of fairness.

The amendment is fine, its the judges that have been fucked up.

 

[peach174]

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

With due respect, our nation is a Republic NOT a Democracy.


"The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government."

- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

source: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

Yes they are exclusive.
Our Republic gives the minorities rights and individauls rights, a representaive democray does not.
A Representative Democracy is like Britain’s Government.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

With due respect, our nation is a Republic NOT a Democracy.


"The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government."

- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

source: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections. In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition. They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights.

That is what makes us a Republic, democracy that is restrained by a Constitution. You really need to go back to school.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

And for the thousandth time you are wrong.
That is a fact stated above about our Government.

Our government is a representative democracy.

That is the only fact you need to know.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

If we were a representative democracy then we would not have the 3 separate powers of Government and giving the minority rights.

See the 17th amendment. The senate no longer provides minority rights through the state legislatures, it now provides majority rights of each state individually. Thus as the majority migrate to said successful states, the majority is able to suck on the teat of the wealth of the minority of that state.

There is no merit to having a government where a minority of representatives can thwart the will of the majority.

That is simply a formula for dysfunction.

The Constitution speaks of the role of government serving as a republic, which is why we have two senators associated with each state to pass laws based on equal representation and not simply a majority where more populated states get the upper hand. The House representation is for the needs of the will of the people, which makes the House and Senate a true checks and balance when it was established. The Legislative branch and the executive are designed with the purpose of creating a checks and balance with a dependency of one to the other in establishing laws. No single branch should have the ultimate power if they follow those powers delegated specifically to them under the Constitution. It's that representation "checks and balance" of the legislative, as well as within all three branches of government, set under a Constitutional framework which makes us a Republic and not a Democracy.

Wrong. For the thousandth time.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.


Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Seriously, maybe you need to.

For the thousandth time, 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is a democracy.

Yes they are exclusive.
Our Republic gives the minorities rights and individauls rights, a representaive democray does not.
A Representative Democracy is like Britain’s Government.

That's nonsense.

I guess then this is fiction:

The Human Rights Act Liberty