• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democracy is Dead in the USA

thinkagain said:
Hear Hear ! as soon as we got through the various label semantics and got into the substance of the issue we quickly found ourselves on the same page.
Click to expand...

look at u.s. Enabling laws, were federal statutes state the federal government and states governments, shall not do anything repugnant against the principles of the DOI
Enabling Act



AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and Washington, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, respectively, as hereinafter provided.





SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship
 
Master PO said:
look at u.s. Enabling laws, were federal statutes state the federal government and states governments, shall not do anything repugnant against the principles of the DOI
Enabling Act



AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and Washington, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, respectively, as hereinafter provided.





SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship
Click to expand...

Strange that when I view your post the enabling laws do not show up but, they do when I respond.

Would you happen to have a link ? This is good stuff !
 
thinkagain said:
Strange that when I view your post the enabling laws do not show up but, they do when I respond.

Would you happen to have a link ? This is good stuff !
Click to expand...

enabling laws deal with new states that enter the union.

there are many enabling laws, this one covers North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington

there are ones for HI, OK and others, with the same sentence in them "not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence"

State History Enabling Act


All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

[2] “Foundational . . . organic principles . . . as embodied in . . . Union;” refers to the organic principles of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S.C. 1776) and the CONSTITUTION (U.S.C. 1787). These principles were mutually required by all States for ‘equal footing’ in the Union by the DECLARATION and by Acts enabling States to join the Union. These foundational principles were required of and accepted by Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Washington by enabling acts. See:
Hawaii Admission Act, § 1, 73 Stat. 4 (18 March 1959) Pub. L. 86-3; 1 HRS 90 (1993). Etc. "[t]he constitution of the State of Hawaii shall always be republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the
Declaration of Independence." See also:
Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 557, 568-579, (20 June 1910).
Colorado Enabling Act 18 Stat. 474 (3 March 1875).
Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, ch. 180, 4, 25 Stat. 676 (Mont., N.D., S.D. & Wash.).
Nebraska Enabling Act, ch. 59, 13 Stat. at L. 47 (19 April 1864).
Nevada Enabling Act, 12 Stat. 36 (21 March 1864).
New Mexico Enabling Act 36 Stat. 557-567 (20 June 1910).
 
Last edited:
thinkagain said:
Other than on social issues (Abortion vs Guns and so on). Red and Blue are working towards the same goal.

Both hate the constitution and the basic principles on which this nation was founded - individual rights and freedoms/liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't, Limited Gov't, and control of that authority by "we the people".

Every member of SCOTUS should be fired for dereliction of duty (interpreting the constitution and keeping the Gov't from stepping outside it's legitimate purview).

Both Red and Blue hate fair and free markets. They make regulations to keep the Oligopolies strong by keeping the little guy from competing and also by promoting wage deflation through lack of wage competition. When there is only a few companies in a given sector the employees have little power.

In the 50's the worker/Corp tax split was roughly 50/50. Now it is 80/20 or worse.

McDonalds needs roads, infrastructure, police just as much the worker. I am not real happy about paying McDonalds share of the tax bill on the basis that "they create a few min wage jobs".
Click to expand...

ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved
“We will take America without firing a shot ... we will bury you!

“We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism.

“We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”

This is a quote attributed to the late Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect truth for today.
I look at the difference being social policies. They both have devoured America but this process started long ago before the Korean Conflict. The lies and fears cast by government have beat the American people down.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved

This is a perfect truth for today.
I look at the difference being social policies. They both have devoured America but this process started long ago before the Korean Conflict. The lies and fears cast by government have beat the American people down.
Click to expand...

I would claim that this started at least as far back the early 20th century when the money supply came under the control of private interests.
 
Master PO said:
actually the u.s. was created a classical republic like ROME which was a mixed government and not a democratic form.

democratic forms of government are evil forms, because although people think that they rule, actually an oligarchy runs the government from behind the curtain, with the oligarchy being special interest......which can be blamed on the 17th amendment

this what James Madison states in the federalist 10, and why the founders created a republican form of government and not a democratic one.

in the time of the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron
Click to expand...

James Madison felt that the elite should rule over everyone else. The elite of his time were mainly property owners. The elite during our times are owners of big industry often times multinational corps.
 
Master PO said:
enabling laws deal with new states that enter the union.

there are many enabling laws, this one covers North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington

there are ones for HI, OK and others, with the same sentence in them "not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence"

State History Enabling Act


All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

[2] “Foundational . . . organic principles . . . as embodied in . . . Union;” refers to the organic principles of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S.C. 1776) and the CONSTITUTION (U.S.C. 1787). These principles were mutually required by all States for ‘equal footing’ in the Union by the DECLARATION and by Acts enabling States to join the Union. These foundational principles were required of and accepted by Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Washington by enabling acts. See:
Hawaii Admission Act, § 1, 73 Stat. 4 (18 March 1959) Pub. L. 86-3; 1 HRS 90 (1993). Etc. "[t]he constitution of the State of Hawaii shall always be republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the
Declaration of Independence." See also:
Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 557, 568-579, (20 June 1910).
Colorado Enabling Act 18 Stat. 474 (3 March 1875).
Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, ch. 180, 4, 25 Stat. 676 (Mont., N.D., S.D. & Wash.).
Nebraska Enabling Act, ch. 59, 13 Stat. at L. 47 (19 April 1864).
Nevada Enabling Act, 12 Stat. 36 (21 March 1864).
New Mexico Enabling Act 36 Stat. 557-567 (20 June 1910).
Click to expand...

Nothing about West Virginia there. I've read that the creation of that State was also repugnant to the Constitution. What do you think?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
James Madison felt that the elite should rule over everyone else. The elite of his time were mainly property owners. The elite during our times are owners of big industry often times multinational corps.
Click to expand...

if that were true, when Madison would not have had the people having any representation in his framework for a constitution, but it did.

On May 29, 1787, Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph proposed what became known as "The Virginia Plan." Written primarily by fellow Virginian James Madison, the plan traced the broad outlines of what would become the U.S. Constitution: a national government consisting of three branches with checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. In its amended form, this page of Madison's plan shows his ideas for a legislature. It describes 2 houses: one with members elected by the people for 3-year terms and the other composed of older leaders elected by the state legislatures for 7-year terms. Both would use population as a basis for dividing seats among the states.

https://ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=7
 
Master PO said:
if that were true, when Madison would not have had the people having any representation in his framework for a constitution, but it did.

On May 29, 1787, Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph proposed what became known as "The Virginia Plan." Written primarily by fellow Virginian James Madison, the plan traced the broad outlines of what would become the U.S. Constitution: a national government consisting of three branches with checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. In its amended form, this page of Madison's plan shows his ideas for a legislature. It describes 2 houses: one with members elected by the people for 3-year terms and the other composed of older leaders elected by the state legislatures for 7-year terms. Both would use population as a basis for dividing seats among the states.

https://ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=7
Click to expand...

The point is he wanted the people to be represented by those of wealth which he called wise men. Now we are just ruled (represented) by men that have been handpicked from the elite/wealthy whose main concern is their interest. We get to pick which special interest we like the most. If the interest of either side is unappealing, we are out of luck.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Nothing about West Virginia there. I've read that the creation of that State was also repugnant to the Constitution. What do you think?
Click to expand...

i dont see how, being part of the union is a voluntary association, if the people of say a territory choose to be part of that association they can because they have the right to self government.

but in joining the union a constitution of a newly formed state cannot have any laws which would violate the principles of the DOI or constitutional law.

of course both the states and the federal government have now violated the founding principles of the DOI.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The point is he wanted the people to be represented by those of wealth which he called wise men. Now we are just ruled (represented) by men that have been handpicked from the elite/wealthy whose main concern is their interest. We get to pick which special interest we like the most. If the interest of either side is unappealing, we are out of luck.
Click to expand...

people under his plan could elect anyone they chose, it is the upper chamber of government were madsion wanted people to have governmental experience.

the house is the lower chamber, while the senate is the upper chamber.

representatives of the house represent people only in districts, their responsible is not as big as a person who would represent a whole state which the responsibility is greater, which is why people would have more experience of government in that upper chamber


TODAY: our government is bought and sold not because of Madison, he worked to prevent it by creating our government as a "mixed government", but that mixed government is gone because of the 17th amendment.

if you read the federalist 10, Madison states democratic forms of government have many factious combinations/special interest in them, to prevent that special interest from controlling our government, we must have a republican form of government, not a democratic one and keep the congress divided in its power.

today the senate is directly elected by the people, this makes senators free agents to be bought off by special interest, under our original constitution the senators cannot be bought and sold, because they must vote according to how their state directs them to vote and the senate power is limited by the constitution in making law.

want to get rid of special interest in washington?...repeal the 17th amendment and return to the mixed government of the founders.

democracy as a FORM of government will always be ruled by elites from behind the curtain.
 
Master PO said:
people under his plan could elect anyone they chose, it is the upper chamber of government were madsion wanted people to have governmental experience.

the house is the lower chamber, while the senate is the upper chamber.

representatives of the house represent people only in districts, their responsible is not as big as a person who would represent a whole state which the responsibility is greater, which is why people would have more experience of government in that upper chamber


TODAY: our government is bought and sold not because of Madison, he worked to prevent it by creating our government as a "mixed government", but that mixed government is gone because of the 17th amendment.

if you read the federalist 10, Madison states democratic forms of government have many factious combinations/special interest in them, to prevent that special interest from controlling our government, we must have a republican form of government, not a democratic one and keep the congress divided in its power.

today the senate is directly elected by the people, this makes senators free agents to be bought off by special interest, under our original constitution the senators cannot be bought and sold, because they must vote according to how their state directs them to vote and the senate power is limited by the constitution in making law.

want to get rid of special interest in washington?...repeal the 17th amendment and return to the mixed government of the founders.

democracy as a FORM of government will always be ruled by elites from behind the curtain.
Click to expand...

We've had this conversation about the 17th amendment in the past. The reason it exist is because of the robber barons that got selected by those in power to be senators. That was even worse than what we are dealing with now.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
We've had this conversation about the 17th amendment in the past. The reason it exist is because of the robber barons that got selected by those in power to be senators. That was even worse than what we are dealing with now.
Click to expand...

the 17th amendment ended some corruption on a state level effecting the people of a state , HOWEVER!...it moved corruption on the state level now to the federal level where you see it every single day, with senators by bought off by special interest groups which effect every single Citizen in the u.s.

by creating the 17th amendment we have changed our republican form of government to a more democratic form of government, and democratic forms of government are run by elites behind the curtain

federalist 10- The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

as long as you advocate for the 17th amendment to the constitution, then you are also advocating for elites to run our federal government
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
i dont see how, being part of the union is a voluntary association, if the people of say a territory choose to be part of that association they can because they have the right to self government.

but in joining the union a constitution of a newly formed state cannot have any laws which would violate the principles of the DOI or constitutional law.

of course both the states and the federal government have now violated the founding principles of the DOI.
Click to expand...

Article IV, Section 3: "...but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor shall any state be formed..."

In context, West Virginia was formed out of mostly Virginia, and it was done in defense of an imminent civil war with the south.

Governments seem to break the law as they see fit, eh?
 
Master PO said:
the 17th amendment ended some corruption on a state level effecting the people of a state , HOWEVER!...it moved corruption on the state level now to the federal level where you see it every single day, with senators by bought off by special interest groups which effect every single Citizen in the u.s.

by creating the 17th amendment we have changed our republican form of government to a more democratic form of government, and democratic forms of government are run by elites behind the curtain

federalist 10- The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

as long as you advocate for the 17th amendment to the constitution, then you are also advocating for elites to run our federal government
Click to expand...

This is not a logical argument. Elites can also handpick candidates as seen prior to the 17th amendment.
 
thinkagain said:
Before running out and finding a bunch of examples to show democracy is "alive and well" .....

Democracy is dead/useless if the Sheep are brainwashed.
Click to expand...

You're just figuring this out now? Democracy's been slowly dying in the States since back in 1976 per Buckley v Valeo when the SCOTUS idiotically declared that money was speech, and there's research to prove it: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Right now the United States is not a democracy, nor a constitutional/democratic republic, but a de facto plutocracy, rule of the rich in all but name, and it will remain so until a constitutional amendment puts a definitive end to the contagion of private money in public office.
 
Surrealistik said:
You're just figuring this out now? Democracy's been slowly dying in the States since back in 1976 per Buckley v Valeo when the SCOTUS idiotically declared that money was speech, and there's research to prove it: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Right now the United States is not a democracy, nor a constitutional/democratic republic, but a de facto plutocracy, rule of the rich in all but name, and it will remain so until a constitutional amendment puts a definitive end to the contagion of private money in public office.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in general but would claim that control over Gov't by "we the people" have been eroding for much longer than since 1976.

The basic principles on which this nation was founded

1) Individual rights and freedoms and liberty were put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. Gov't in general is not to be making "any" laws outside its legitimate purview ... but, especially they are not to mess with individual liberty "unless" they appeal to change the social contract which is requires overwhelming majority approval (or is supposed to) - 2/3 majority or more. This was to avoid what was referred to as "tyranny of the majority)

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
Click to expand...


2) Authority of gov't comes from "we the people as opposed to "divine right/God". (Social Contract)

The founders set up a system where the power of Gov't was "Limited". (Limited to what ? ... see above)

For 200 years the Gov't has been trying to get that power back .... and they have succeeded.
 
thinkagain said:
It is standard fair that an uneducated (in certain areas) and ignorant populace does not make for a functional democracy.
Click to expand...

Do you mean "standard fare"??
 
joG said:
You do know, however, that it is the closest there is in the real world. At least, of the ones I have looked at, it seems as close to the ideal as any have achieved.
Click to expand...

We are a constitutional republic. We are not a true democracy.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Article IV, Section 3: "...but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor shall any state be formed..."

In context, West Virginia was formed out of mostly Virginia, and it was done in defense of an imminent civil war with the south.

Governments seem to break the law as they see fit, eh?
Click to expand...


i misunderstood, thinking you were asking about people out of the union wanting to join.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
This is not a logical argument. Elites can also handpick candidates as seen prior to the 17th amendment.
Click to expand...

you elect your state legislature, who are accountable to you.

your state legislature appoint your senators, who are accountable to the state legislature.

you are saying that there is corruption because the state legislature does the appointment?

meanwhile you know for a fact that the senators who have been elected by the people, are totally corrupt and working in the interest of elites which effect the nation and everyone in it.

if a state were to be corrupted by its appointment it effects only whats inside of the state and not everything in the U.S.

by having the 17th the u.s. has moved farther away from a republican form of government to a more democratic government, what is James Madison saying in federalist 10?


Federalist 10- The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

translation :he is saying with a republican form of government you have less special interest in that government, then a democratic form of government which is more dreaded then a republican form


if you advocate for the 17th then you are advocating for the elites in Washington in control.
 
Since I was a child I heard my dad say all politicians are "lying bastards" and I have believed that every day of my life. What percent of media questions do politicians side step with their responses? Honestly, talk shows that have politicians on are a waist of air time. I studied propaganda in college and still am fascinated by it and the amount of time politicians spend rehearsing answers is criminal. How do you feel when politicians are screaming about the wealthy and claiming they themselves are part of "the people" when you know they have millions tucked away for their personal joys? Hillary was a prime example of the My dad also said when a politicians was being investigated, "they all do it, he simply got caught". Thanks for the wisdom you gave me dad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom