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.
this democracy argument is the left using alinsky tactics and latching on to a single word to control and manipulate the narrative,,The real problem is just that “representative republic” is simply redundant.
But a “Constitutional” republic shares how the republic is governed and bounded.
Not to split hairs but I feel that "good" or "bad" is immaterial in a Supreme Court. We clearly now have a court with an agenda--taking cases that were historically ignored by the court. That is something we should caution against. Term limits or age-outs is a way to moderate that. Unlike politicians though--there is no way to get rid of a judge currently. Elections don't take place for SCOTUS judgesI don't think we have a good SCOTUS at all.
For example, the war on drugs, mandatory sentencing, asset forfeiture, etc. are all inherently illegal.
I think we need many more ideas and more courage in the SCOTUS.
And then there are the facts:Progressives absolutely hate everything about the US Constitution and have had an uninterrupted 100+ year Jihad against it: Federal Reserve, elections of Senators, the income tax and the MASSIVE federal bureaucracy are the worst of it. They invented and loved and adored Gerrymandering (named after a democrat) when they win and find it absolutely abhorrent when Republicans use it.
Packing the Court is just another Sore Loser Fascist Progressive move
The Democratic-Republican Party, known at the time as the Republican Party
All those dictionaries, so wrong.When you only allow the people to vote for elected representatives who then vote on the actual issues, that is technically not a democracy but a representative republic.
They later formally became the democrat PartyAnd then there are the facts:
Gerrymandering - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
/---/ You libtards are hell bent on changing our form of government because you want the president elected by popular vote, which would render agricultural states moot. We'd be ruled by a few blue states. We are a Republic and always have been.the term 'democracy' is a broad term, which includes BOTH direct democracy, AND 'representative democracy'.
The MISTAKE most republicans make these says is to limit their understanding of the term 'democracy' by how it was used by "Plubius" in the Federalist papers. understand that his usage of the term is the PAROCHIAL use, NOT the broad use of the term. Both 'republic' and 'democracy' have parochial (narrow) and broad usages. Know them, understand them, and quit making up shit that isn't true about them.
The term Republic is even broader, it can been government of appointed, OR elected leaders (by any democratic means).
this was extensively covered here:
Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.
{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post] This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump has joined the *RNAD regurgitators...www.usmessageboard.com
/——-/ No. it’s that you question the need of a USSC to hold the rest of us to the Constitution.Cellblock2429 - you dislike what? - the fact that US presidents have enacted more than 1200 Presidential Executive Orders since 1994?
Okay - then how could E.g. the: Executive Order 13801 of June 15, 2017 have been enacted in the first place? and revoked by Biden Executive Order 14016 on February 17, 2021?/——-/ No. it’s that you question the need of a USSC to hold the rest of us to the Constitution.
Actually, the SC is supposed to check the legislative branch, not the executive one.Okay - then how could E.g. the: Executive Order 13801 of June 15, 2017 have been enacted in the first place? and revoked by Biden Executive Order 14016 on February 17, 2021?
Supreme court sleeping or doing whatever they are being told to do? - just asking.
Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.
/---/ I'm not a lawyer, but I believe someone has to petition the USSC to review and judge any law or executive order. I guess no one asked the SC to review those EOs.Okay - then how could E.g. the: Executive Order 13801 of June 15, 2017 have been enacted in the first place? and revoked by Biden Executive Order 14016 on February 17, 2021?
Supreme court sleeping or doing whatever they are being told to do? - just asking.
www.justia.com
Actually, the SC can rule on the constitutionality of ANY legislation, municipal, state, (including ballot initiatives) and federal legislation.Actually, the SC is supposed to check the legislative branch, not the executive one.
/---/ You libtards are hell bent on changing our form of government because you want the president elected by popular vote, which would render agricultural states moot. We'd be ruled by a few blue states. We are a Republic and always have been.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. – Article. IV. Section. 4. guaranteeing every state a Republican form of Government.
the minority doesn't rule again for the slow and painfully STUPID states elect the President and a majority of states always do. Just because MILLIONS of lefties live in 2 states doesn't mean those 2 states rule the Country.No where in the Federalist papers does it say minority should rule. That was NEVER the intent of the founding fathers. In Federalist #22, it says '
..that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail
They did understand the possibility that it could happen, and it happened only three times in the 19th century, and twice in the 21st century. But, that it happened twice in a span of two decades, and it 's looking like now for a Democrat president to win he has to have several million more votes than his Repubican counterpart, the demographics shift, which did not exist when the framers wrote the constitution, are revealing that there is a inherent unfairness in the process because of this shift.
That means a remedy is in order.
The claim that "America is not a democracy" because the term "democracy" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is a misunderstanding of the nature of the American system of government. Here are a few key points to debunk this misunderstanding:Show us where the word 'democracy' appears in the Constitution.
/——-/ Back to your original point that we are a democracy:No where in the Federalist papers does it say minority should rule. That was NEVER the intent of the founding fathers. In Federalist #22, it says '
..that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail
They did understand the possibility that it could happen, and it happened only three times in the 19th century, and twice in the 21st century. But, that it happened twice in a span of two decades, and it 's looking like now for a Democrat president to win he has to have several million more votes than his Repubican counterpart, the demographics shift, which did not exist when the framers wrote the constitution, are revealing that there is a inherent unfairness in the process because of this shift.
Given the fact that it hs happening with much greater frequency, that means a remedy is in order.
You haven't actually refuted my comment. Your point is addressed, try reading it again.the minority doesn't rule again for the slow and painfully STUPID states elect the President and a majority of states always do. Just because MILLIONS of lefties live in 2 states doesn't mean those 2 states rule the Country.
you have no point just because liberals abound in several states does not make those states more important than the other 47 or 48 states again the STATES elect the president not popular vote there is no imbalance and no minority rule,You haven't actually refuted my comment. Your point is addressed, try reading it again.
/——-/ Rumpole is most likely British which is perfectly fine. It’s comical to see him try to debate on topics he barely understands.you have no point just because liberals abound in several states does not make those states more important than the other 47 or 48 states again the STATES elect the president not popular vote there is no imbalance and no minority rule,
