DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC[W:172]

[haymarket]

it also matters how the Constitution lays out the federal government in its structure, and it is clearly mixed, by how officials were elected.....

people
state legislatures
electoral college

It never uses the word MIXED. This is more crap you made up and threw it into the Constitution as one big LIE.

 

[Master PO]

It never uses the word MIXED. This is more crap you made up and threw it into the Constitution as one big LIE.

so you say these founders are laying?

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.

 

[Master PO]

Herr Barkmann - insulting me does not change you into an US. You are an I - not a WE or an US. You speak for yourself.

Let me know when you stopped supporting the idea of a state. :doh When did you become an anarchist? :roll:

Oh wait - let me guess? Calling me silly names like STATIST is just you getting your far right extremist club card stamped. Okay - got it loud and clear. :lamo

wrong its not an insult, it but a fact, ...you are a statist, ......statism is a belief you agree with.


to be a anarchist, means ...no government...i am a constitutionalists for limited government, and you know that.

 

[haymarket]

so you say these founders are laying?

Laying the foundation for your continual denial of reality - perhaps.

The key word here is IRRELEVANT. The personal opinion of any founder is irrelevant next to the actual document. They mandated a REPUBLICAN form of government and that is what we have.

 

[haymarket]

wrong its not an insult, it but a fact, ...you are a statist, ......statism is a belief you agree with.


to be a anarchist, means ...no government...i am a constitutionalists for limited government, and you know that.

As am I. I want the most limited government possible to carry out the Constitution and the laws of the land.

 

[Master PO]

The personal opinion of any founder is irrelevant next to the actual document. They mandated a REPUBLICAN form of government and that is what we have.

so again you are saying these founders, even though they state we have a mixed government, they are wrong, and don't know what kind of a constitution was created?......or are you going to dodge this question again.

republican form of government is MIXED GOVERNMENT, or have you not learned that already.

 

[haymarket]

so again you are saying these founders, even though they state we have a mixed government, they are wrong, and don't know what kind of a constitution was created?......or are you going to dodge this question again.

republican form of government is MIXED GOVERNMENT, or have you not learned that already.

We were provided with a republican form of government. Any other description is not what the Constitution provides for no matter who says it.

 

[Master PO]

As am I. I want the most limited government possible to carry out the Constitution and the laws of the land.

wrong, you state the general welfare means the government have be involved in many things, including eduction and housing, and redistribution of money......that is not limited government.

you are a statist, who loves big government.

 

[haymarket]

wrong, you state the general welfare means the government have be involved in many things, including eduction and housing, and redistribution of money......that is not limited government.

you are a statist, who loves big government.

Government is either limited or unlimited. I prefer it to be limited.

Your tactic of having to demonize me and call me names does not change the weakness of your case.

 

[Master PO]

We were provided with a republican form of government. Any other description is not what the Constitution provides for no matter who says it.

wrong, the structure of the government as dictated by the constitution makes it a mixed government.

 

[Master PO]

Government is either limited or unlimited. I prefer it to be limited.

Your tactic of having to demonize me and call me names does not change the weakness of your case.

calling you names?.....stop whining......a statist, is a person who believes government should control all, which is your belief.

 

[haymarket]

wrong, the structure of the government as dictated by the constitution makes it a mixed government.

it does not matter if you call it a salad ... its irrelevant. The fact is that the US Constitution does NOT mention the term MIXED GOVERNMENT. You are attempting to put forth an intellectual fraud on the readers here as follows:

A - the Constitution madates a republican form of government
B- a mixed government is a republican form of government
C- several founders say that their idea of a republic is mixed government
D - the 17th Amendment changed and broke the founders idea of a mixed government
E - because of that we no longer have the republic the Constitution mandates

It is the worst sort of intellectual fraud pretending that one thing is really another and what is the other thing is determined by the opinion of a few people who have been dead for two centuries.

STOP IT if you have any concern for honesty and integrity.

It does not matter Herr Barkmann if you like our current republican form or not because we are following the Constitution and have a republic.

It does not matter if Patrick Henry would check on his salt pork if he knew what happened to the country with the 17th Amendment because we are following the Constitution and have a republic..

It does not matter it Madison would turn spins in his grave because we are following the Constitution and have a republic.

Of course, just like always, you will ignore the point here and continue your obsession with the fantasy of mixed government.

 

[haymarket]

calling you names?.....stop whining......a statist, is a person who believes government should control all, which is your belief.

LIAR!!!!!

Prove it Herr Barkmann. Prove it with my own words that I want government to control all.

The last time you led with your ass instead of your brain you were left out to dry as you could not back up your words. This time will be no different. Prove with my own words that I want government to conrol all.

You lied last time and you lie again.

 

[Master PO]

LIAR!!!!!

Prove it Herr Barkmann. Prove it with my own words that I want government to control all.

The last time you led with your ass instead of your brain you were left out to dry as you could not back up your words. This time will be no different. Prove with my own words that I want government to conrol all.

You lied last time and you lie again.

your posts since you have been on this form, which i have read.

leads me to that conclusion.......i call them as i see them.

 

[Master PO]

it does not matter if you call it a salad ... its irrelevant. The fact is that the US Constitution does NOT mention the term MIXED GOVERNMENT. You are attempting to put forth an intellectual fraud on the readers here as follows:

A - the Constitution madates a republican form of government
B- a mixed government is a republican form of government
C- several founders say that their idea of a republic is mixed government
D - the 17th Amendment changed and broke the founders idea of a mixed government
E - because of that we no longer have the republic the Constitution mandates

It is the worst sort of intellectual fraud pretending that one thing is really another and what is the other thing is determined by the opinion of a few people who have been dead for two centuries.

STOP IT if you have any concern for honesty and integrity.

It does not matter Herr Barkmann if you like our current republican form or not because we are following the Constitution and have a republic.

It does not matter if Patrick Henry would check on his salt pork if he knew what happened to the country with the 17th Amendment because we are following the Constitution and have a republic..

It does not matter it Madison would turn spins in his grave because we are following the Constitution and have a republic.

Of course, just like always, you will ignore the point here and continue your obsession with the fantasy of mixed government.

just because you say its irrelevant does not make it so, the founders state clearly the constitution was created mixed constitution.

based on how officials were elected, and the senate has been changed because of the 17th, making it directly elected by the people, no more is it a aristocracy, meant to check federal power, congress is now a democracy, which is always at war with individual rights.

mixed government is a balance of powers, today it no longer balanced, which is why the government has expanded, and usurped state powers.

 

[newpublius]

The nature of the system is relatively unique. In a simplistic sense you can liken it to a system of dual sovereignty, both remaining supreme in their respective spheres. That helps to start the inquiry. In one of his letters Madison ponders Vattel, the French writer whose thoughts formed the foundation of international law, would think of the novel system, ie. what madison calls a "real non description"

We have that description, it's in Federalist 39

"The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national."

 

[haymarket]

your posts since you have been on this form, which i have read.

leads me to that conclusion.......i call them as i see them.

The umpire calls them as they see them. We call the umpire the United States Supreme Court. They have nothing in common with your extremism and reject your far right views.

 

[haymarket]

just because you say its irrelevant does not make it so,

Reality makes it so.

225 years of history makes it so.

Countless Supreme Court decisions make it so.

And the US Constitution and what it actually says - as opposed to what you want it to have said - make it so.

Yes - your opinion and those of a few long dead people are indeed irrelevant because the Constitution mandates a republican form of government and that is what we have.

Now Herr Barkmann - simple question for you: do we or don't we have a republican form of government based on the standard definition of the term as previously cited from many authoritative sources on the meaning of english language words?

Because if we do - all your ranting and raving means nothing and by your own admission you have no point. And we most clearly and undeniably do indeed have a republican form of government.

 

[Master PO]

The umpire calls them as they see them. We call the umpire the United States Supreme Court. They have nothing in common with your extremism and reject your far right views.

Not able to understand? I said I ,as in me, call them as I see them. The court has nothing to do with it.

 

[Master PO]

Reality makes it so.

225 years of history makes it so.

Countless Supreme Court decisions make it so.

And the US Constitution and what it actually says - as opposed to what you want it to have said - make it so.

Yes - your opinion and those of a few long dead people are indeed irrelevant because the Constitution mandates a republican form of government and that is what we have.

Now Herr Barkmann - simple question for you: do we or don't we have a republican form of government based on the standard definition of the term as previously cited from many authoritative sources on the meaning of english language words?

Because if we do - all your ranting and raving means nothing and by your own admission you have no point. And we most clearly and undeniably do indeed have a republican form of government.

wrong again, I don't believe the court has ruled on mixed goverment, however that does nothing to change what the founders say, about the constitution they created of mixed goverment

 

[Master PO]

Reality makes it so.

225 years of history makes it so.

Countless Supreme Court decisions make it so.

And the US Constitution and what it actually says - as opposed to what you want it to have said - make it so.

Yes - your opinion and those of a few long dead people are indeed irrelevant because the Constitution mandates a republican form of government and that is what we have.

Now Herr Barkmann - simple question for you: do we or don't we have a republican form of government based on the standard definition of the term as previously cited from many authoritative sources on the meaning of english language words?

The constitution mandates a republican form, however amerca is not in it's true form of republican, why? Because all of congress in directly elected by the people, and a republican form of government which also the states are mandated to be are no longer republican either. Republican forms of goverments , do not allow referendums of the people......

 

[haymarket]

Not able to understand? I said I ,as in me, call them as I see them. The court has nothing to do with it.

What you call and how you call it is irrelevant to reality.

 

[haymarket]

wrong again, I don't believe the court has ruled on mixed goverment, however that does nothing to change what the founders say, about the constitution they created of mixed goverment

Why should the Court say boo about it as the Constitution does not mention mixed government?

It matters NOT what a few long dead people said 200 years ago about mixed government because the Constitution does not mention it.

 

[haymarket]

The constitution mandates a republican form, however amerca is not in it's true form of republican, why? Because all of congress in directly elected by the people, and a republican form of government which also the states are mandated to be are no longer republican either. Republican forms of goverments , do not allow referendums of the people......

The constitution does not say anything about any particular "TRUE FORM" so your claim is ridiculous and not based on the Constitution.

 

[Master PO]

What you call and how you call it is irrelevant to reality.

reality = not following the constitution.