• 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!

Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights? [W:85]

Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?


  • Total voters
    62
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

You cannot even say where you are getting your definitions from and where the statements based on the definitions come from.

You are making this up as you go along and have been exposed for a fraud.

I provided links to my sources. Why can't you do the same for your definitions of REPUBLIC and DEMOCRACY? Its because you made it up and pulled it out of ....... well .... thin air to be charitable.

Research republam form of goverment and read federalist 62 and 63, you can thank me later
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Research republam form of goverment and read federalist 62 and 63, you can thank me later

I already presented you with verifiable evidence of what a REPUBLIC is and what a DEMOCRACY is. It is clear from that evidence that the USA is a republic.

You - on the other hand - have presented nothing in the way of verifiable evidence to support your own rather peculiar definitions of both terms?

Why is that?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

I already presented you with verifiable evidence of what a REPUBLIC is and what a DEMOCRACY is. It is clear from that evidence that the USA is a republic.

You - on the other hand - have presented nothing in the way of verifiable evidence to support your own rather peculiar definitions of both terms?

Why is that?

Analysis: federalist 62...titled the "Senate"

There can be little doubt that the designers of the Constitution saw good public policy and stability in the laws as paramount concerns. In Federalist 62, for example, Madison defended the Senate in the proposed bicameral Congress on the grounds, in part, that the Senate could block passage of undesirable polices which a unicameral legislature might approve: "Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the States." Similarly, "a Senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly distinct from and dividing the power with the first [house], must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient."

One reason that House members could not always be trusted stemmed from their short terms of office. To Madison, this meant that these legislators would be unable to develop the necessary wisdom about public policy. As he remarked about the virtues of a Senate whose members have longer terms, "Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation. It is not possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature continued in appointment for a short time and led by no permanent motive to devote the internals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust." It was thought that a Senate with a slow turnover and whose members had long terms of office would be able to avoid the unwise polices that a unicameral legislature might be expected to produce.

A bicameral legislature could also be expected to help prevent instability in the laws. There was no doubt in Madison's mind that instability in the laws had great costs: "To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume." These effects were both external and internal. Externally, instability causes the nation to forfeit "the respect and confidence of other nations." Internally, the consequences of instability were even worse * "it poisons the blessings of liberty itself." Commerce could also expect to suffer from an unstable government.

In 1785, the Marquis de Condorcet published his Essai, in which he explicitly noted and discussed the particular problem of majority rule instability. While The Federalists do not specifically discuss the problems of majority rule instability, one scholar notes that Madison had read Condorcet's essay and is known to have written a review of it, a review which is now, unfortunately, lost. Although not explicitly, therefore, Madison and the Federalist papers do internally deal with instability, especially within Federalist 62 and the instability of the legislature branch.



that the Senate could block passage of undesirable polices which a unicameral legislature might approve........................ [unicameral legislature] ---one single chamber

Senate is the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation...................................................[improper acts of legislation ]---collective action of the people

Similarly, "a Senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly distinct from and dividing the power with the first [House], must be in all cases a salutary check on the government...............[divided power].........republican form of government

It doubles the security to the people by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient."..............[two distinct bodies] ....where ambition and corruption of one sufficient [easier]
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

None of that tribute to Madison contains the information as to where you got your definitions. Before you began your worship of your idol - can you tell me where your definitions come from of a DEMOCRACY and a REPUBLIC?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

None of that tribute to Madison contains the information as to where you got your definitions. Before you began your worship of your idol - can you tell me where your definitions come from of a DEMOCRACY and a REPUBLIC?

your question should be what is the difference between a democratic republic,......... and a republic with a republican form of government........not just a republic.

because a republic can be a ....a democracy, republican, even communist.....IE... USSR

if the us. would have been created as a democratic republic...IE a representative democracy.......then the constitution would have stated direct elections by the people of the congress and the president.

in a republican form of government, ....the people, state legislatures, and the electoral college delegates elected, the congress and the president.........what is know as divided power, or mixed government

A Classical Republic, (Greek: πολιτεια; Latin: respublica) is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

A republic, in the classical form, is a type of government that is made up of a mixture of elements from three other types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. There is the Spartan model, which is a tripartite form of government which is a combination of kings, gerousia (aristocracy) and the assembly of all the males (democratic body). There is the Roman model that has a civilian head, and an aristocratic body which is the Senate and smaller assemblies representing the citizens. A republic is marked by a bicameral legislative body (the upper house being aristocratic) and by a written constitution that marks out the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies.

The classical republic or 'mixed government' is a product of the cultural mindset of the Indo-European races of trifunctionality1 and by and large, generated by citizen/soldier/farmer societies. It was first developed by the Doric Greeks on the island of Crete. 11 It is a by-product of the special Doric Cretan mentality of syncretism (which "Crete" forms the central portion of the word).62 "What the Dorians endeavoured to obtain in a state was good order, or cosmos, the regular combination of different elements." 58

Because of the character of the Anglo-Saxons,1 Britain in the 13th century naturally evolved into the structure of a classical republic mirroring the Spartan model. 2 The old English word "Commonwealth" is same as the Latin word Res publica. 57 The Founding Fathers of the United States modelled America along the same lines as her mother country, Britain, and the Roman Republic with her civilian head. Since the 1920's, there have been no governments that are 'mixed'.


federalist 40--THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.


http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Classical_definition_of_republic
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

your question should be what is the difference between a democratic republic,......... and a republic with a republican form of government........not just a republic.

NO - but I can see why you want a strawman to debate with.

My questions are the same as they have been all day long - where do you obtain your definitions of DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC from?

I contend you pulled it out of .......... thin air so to speak. You made it up.

So where did you obtain them and what was the source for them?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

no - but i can see why you want a strawman to debate with.

My questions are the same as they have been all day long - where do you obtain your definitions of democracy and republic from?

I contend you pulled it out of .......... Thin air so to speak. You made it up.

So where did you obtain them and what was the source for them?

well of coarse anything you don't like you say that or you say you cant understand........but i have explained it well enough.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

well of coarse anything you don't like you say that or you say you cant understand........but i have explained it well enough.

You have not said where you got your definitions of the key words DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC from. I provided verifiable sources for mine.

I suspect you simply pulled them out of ...... thin air. You made them up. You reject the normal definitions in favor of your own homemade nonsense because the normal definitions show the the USA is a republic and that defeats your silly allegations.

So tell us Herr Barkmann - where did you get those definitions from?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

OK guys, while I can appreciate how this side track got started, it has moved so completely off topic that it deserves its own thread. Please move it there.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

you have not said where you got your definitions of the key words democracy and republic from. I provided verifiable sources for mine.

I suspect you simply pulled them out of ...... Thin air. You made them up. You reject the normal definitions in favor of your own homemade nonsense because the normal definitions show the the usa is a republic and that defeats your silly allegations.

So tell us herr barkmann - where did you get those definitions from?

this we have been asked to move, i will comply and set your last posting into the constitution part of the forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom