Page 33 of 80 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 800

Thread: Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

  1. #321
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    if someone kills ...murders, then his rights are no longer secure......

    stand your ground,...... enforces property owner rights, to use deadly force if threaten........you cannot kill just to kill.

    so if people give themselves rights, ....then if 51% decide to take rights away from the 49% ........since the power to give is also the power to take.........your fine with that, even though it violates the founding principles of the DOI.

    collective rule is majority rule, the founders gave us rule of law........not majority rule.
    Fair point. The majority can't take away a constitutional right. However, the rights in the constitution came from those who wrote and amended it coming to agreement, not from a deity.

    The initial constitution allowed slavery and denied women (and non-property holding white men) the vote. We have changed it - collectively - to remove those. No deity came down and told us to do that.

  2. #322
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Attacking me and calling me names does not erase the two recent threads where you said it was a debatable issue and you gave post after post after post after post in which you criticized our government for being democratic. I provided both thread links. I provided exact posts from you in which you did that to call doubt upon if we were a republic or not.

    Why are you not trying to disown your own recent views? Here is just a part of them


    But even with your unfounded anger and irresponsible name calling against me and the personal attacks, I will be the bigger man and repeat that I am glad to see you have returned to the path of reality Herr Barkmann and have abandoned your more recent doubts about the USA and its form of government expressed over and over and over and over again by you in the two threads I cited this very morning. I guess a temporary lapse in judgment is acceptable if you have returned to the path of truth and reality. glad to have you back.
    because you are dishonest, by stating i don't believe the u.s. is a republican form of government, and i have been saying that for 1 1/2 years, and you know it!


    here is a pretty present for you hay!


    John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

    James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

    Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.


    here is Wikipedia, which you haymarket ----------->STATED WAS A VERIFIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION


    MIXED GOVERNMENT

    Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

    Renaissance and Enlightenment

    Cicero became extremely well regarded during the Renaissance and many of his ideas were embraced. Polybius was also rediscovered and the positive view of mixed governments became a central aspect of Renaissance political science integrated into the developing notion of republicanism. Mixed government theories became extremely popular in the Enlightenment and were discussed in detail by Hobbes, Locke, Vico, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Kant. Apart from his contemporaries, only Montesquieu became widely acknowledged as the author of a concept of separation of powers (although he wrote rather on their "distribution").[citation needed]

    According to some scholars[who?] the notion also influenced the writers of the United States Constitution who based the idea of checks and balances upon the ancient theory. The constitution of Britain during the Victorian Era with a Parliament composed of the Sovereign (monarchy), a House of Lords (aristocracy) and House of Commons (democracy) is a prime example of a mixed constitution in the 19th century.

    Father of the American constitution James Madison in federalist paper #40 states the constitutional convention of 1787 created a mixed constitution and well as Madison's reference to Polybius in federalist paper #63.

    Modern views

    One school of scholarship, based mainly in the United States, consider mixed government to be the central characteristic of a republic, and hold that the U.S. has rule by the one (the President), the few (the Senate, which was originally supposed to represent the States), and the many (House of Representatives). According to Frank Lovett this school is largely defunct.[1]

    Yet another school of thought in the United States says the Supreme Court has taken on the role of "The Best" in recent decades, ensuring a continuing separation of authority by offsetting the direct election of senators and preserving the mixing of Democracy, Aristocracy, and Monarchy, and Military divisions of the federal government.

    Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  3. #323
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    fair point. The majority can't take away a constitutional right. However, the rights in the constitution came from those who wrote and amended it coming to agreement, not from a deity.

    The initial constitution allowed slavery and denied women (and non-property holding white men) the vote. We have changed it - collectively - to remove those. No deity came down and told us to do that.
    see post 304 about rights.

    The constitution does not allowed slavery, the constitution puts an end to the importation of slaves by jan 1 1808

    the ussc court, recognized the right to vote..........not the congress

  4. #324
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    It is quite telling that the OP's premise relies on gay rights and legal marijuana not simply being the right thing to do.
    That's not true at all. If Democrats felt it was the right thing to do, then why has it taken so long for a Democratic president to openly speak out on these issues. The answer? Because there is a political advantage to be gained from it now. Previously it was too politically dangerous.

  5. #325
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,140

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    That's what Democrats do.

    Haven't you ever looked at what is under the Democrat tent ? It's a frickin carnival.
    That's what politicians do. In some cases you could call it "representing your constituents." It's actually the very same attitude that caused Romney to have to run much further to the right than his record as Governor. Besides, I thought the big tent was the GOP. That's what Bush I said.

    To the point of the OP, the GOP will adapt and be fine. They will figure out a way to go on winning elections which is what really matters to them anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  6. #326
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,757

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    Fair point. The majority can't take away a constitutional right. However, the rights in the constitution came from those who wrote and amended it coming to agreement, not from a deity.

    The initial constitution allowed slavery and denied women (and non-property holding white men) the vote. We have changed it - collectively - to remove those. No deity came down and told us to do that.
    the majority could indeed use the Amendment process to change anything in the Constitution and that includes a right that is now enjoyed.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #327
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    the majority could indeed use the Amendment process to change anything in the Constitution and that includes a right that is now enjoyed.
    then tell me haymarket why in over 200 years, has the congress ever created an amendment, instituting a right?

    for the federal government to try to create a right, would violate federal law...... the fundamental and organic law of the u.s.

    rights are recognized by the constitution, they are not created by the constitution, so changing the constitution, ..............does not remove the recognized right.


    James Madison--We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

    Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
    Last edited by Master PO; 03-10-14 at 11:18 AM.

  8. #328
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    Fair point. The majority can't take away a constitutional right. However, the rights in the constitution came from those who wrote and amended it coming to agreement, not from a deity.

    The initial constitution allowed slavery and denied women (and non-property holding white men) the vote. We have changed it - collectively - to remove those. No deity came down and told us to do that.
    What rights exactly are you suggesting those who wrote the constitution "Created"?

  9. #329
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    then tell me haymarket why in over 200 years, has the congress ever created an amendment, instituting a right?

    for the federal government to try to create a right, would violate federal law...... the fundamental and organic law of the u.s.
    Well, I do believe Haymarket wasn't suggesting the creation of a right, but rather the removal of one.

    Now, where Haymarket and I differ is in terms of the types of rights there are. But for the sake of this conversation I'll note my view that there are NATURAL rights and there are SOCIETAL rights.

    Natural Rights are broad, exist but are not protected sans a social contract, and can never be fully taken away short of death. Societal Rights are simply agreed upon limitations or constructs within the social construct, often built upon or around a natural right, and can never be made permanent.

    So you can't take away (or give) a "natural" right, they're just there. So we'll talk of societal rights.

    A perfect example of the constitution taking away a societal right would be the 18th amendment, which placed limitations on the rights people had in terms of what they wished to embibe or produce.

    A perfect example of the constitution establishing a societal right would be the 14th amendment, establishing that people had the right under the social contract to equal protection under the law.

  10. #330
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well, I do believe Haymarket wasn't suggesting the creation of a right, but rather the removal of one.

    Now, where Haymarket and I differ is in terms of the types of rights there are. But for the sake of this conversation I'll note my view that there are NATURAL rights and there are SOCIETAL rights.

    Natural Rights are broad, exist but are not protected sans a social contract, and can never be fully taken away short of death. Societal Rights are simply agreed upon limitations or constructs within the social construct, often built upon or around a natural right, and can never be made permanent.

    So you can't take away (or give) a "natural" right, they're just there. So we'll talk of societal rights.

    A perfect example of the constitution taking away a societal right would be the 18th amendment, which placed limitations on the rights people had in terms of what they wished to embibe or produce.

    A perfect example of the constitution establishing a societal right would be the 14th amendment, establishing that people had the right under the social contract to equal protection under the law.
    you cannot remove a right....because the bill of rights does not give any right......the bill of rights are a restriction placed on the federal government [ this from the bill of rights preamble]

    the 14th speaks to government, it does not give any rights.

    it Incorporated the bill of rights, to apply to the states......which it did not before the civil war

Page 33 of 80 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •