History is nothing more than the struggle between freedom and govt?

[Oozlefinch]

. . . based closely on the English system, with some added separations and safeguards. The traditional roles of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary remained mostly the same, and really have no parallel in any other historical system.

In fact, in a great many ways they copied the English system.

A 2 part legislature composed of a Higher (Lords) and Lower (Commons) house, as well as a Chief Executive (Prime Minister). Huge segments of the American Government were copied directly from the English model, the main changes being accounting for the lack of a noble class and no monarchy.

 

[Oozlefinch]

as I said states have been somewhat responsible fiscally because they are constrained by balanced budget Amendments. Average state debt is
around $5000 per head while federal govt debt is about $60,000 per head. Now do you understand?

In other words, you are making things up that you can not back up with facts.

Thank you, goodbye.

 

[Harshaw]

In fact, in a great many ways they copied the English system.

A 2 part legislature composed of a Higher (Lords) and Lower (Commons) house, as well as a Chief Executive (Prime Minister). Huge segments of the American Government were copied directly from the English model, the main changes being accounting for the lack of a noble class and no monarchy.

Of course they were. I don't know why soylentgreen wants so badly to believe they weren't.

 

[Oozlefinch]

When the South went to war over the institution of slavery, was that for freedom or government?

Actually, in the most literal sense it was over Democracy or Republicanism.

In the South, they were believing in Democracy. In other words, what the majority of people think or believe is the rule. And since the majority of people there accepted slavery and all the ills that came with it, that was the law.

However, this country is not and never has been a Democracy. It is a Republic. And so long as less than a majority of component parts (states) accepted slavery, it was allowed. But up to each state, if they wanted to allow it or not. But the South was afraid that in the future that might change, so started a war as a way to preserve their peculiar institution.

And interestingly enough, their attempted government (a Confederation) was also the model the United States first tried. And just like the time before, it was a failure. Far to much power to individual states, almost no power to the Government as a whole.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Of course they were. I don't know why soylentgreen wants so badly to believe they weren't.

There is a reason I have certain people in here who I no longer see their postings. He is one of them.

So many around here simply spout off what they believe and insist it is a fact, no matter how often you show them otherwise. Ask them to prove their point, they simply go on about what they want to believe.

I think I have been getting cancer from all those nonsensical posters.

 

[Harshaw]

There is a reason I have certain people in here who I no longer see their postings. He is one of them.

So many around here simply spout off what they believe and insist it is a fact, no matter how often you show them otherwise. Ask them to prove their point, they simply go on about what they want to believe.

I think I have been getting cancer from all those nonsensical posters.

Sure, but it's not even a point of typical partisan hackery -- it's an entirely factual, esoteric point which doesn't affect any political issue or argument. It doesn't even matter except as a point of history. So, I really don't get the motivation.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, you don't. I don't think you even know what common law is.
You prove you don't by saying:
It has nothing to do with "goals." The POINT has nothing to do with "goals." You just don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
.

Goals as in freedom, liberty, justice etc. These sort of things are not confined to just one form of governance. different styles attempt to reach the same sort of outcomes or aim for the same goal.

Then you're contradicting yourself. That happens when you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
It doesn't affect the basic roles of the legislature, executive, and judiciary. :roll:

Because you think there is only one way to do things. How parochial of you.

Again, you are contradicting yourself.

And again you use a word when you lack an argument.

They call themselves "British," which is the actual, proper analogy to "American."

No, they cll themselves english or irish or scottish. And agree they live under the british rule. Not like americans who all agree they are americans first. you obviously have never talked to any from the isles.

So what? You're just proving my point that your saying "England" instead of "the UK" was no trivial matter. You pooched it.
That happens when you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

So your lack of understanding about national pride in england is evidenced by your not even knowing what they call themselves.

Dude. :shock: In your previous post, you said there was. Holy CATS, man; you disagree just to disagree, and not only do you not understand the subject, you don't even understand what you yourself say from post to post.

I said that THE english none written constitution was better than your american written constitution. Do you lack the ability to follow a sentence or do you lack the wit to figure out the difference between a written and none written constitution.

And that is a separation and check we have.

Good you make the distinction that is an american thing only not something england has as well. Your starting to get the idea that they are not the same.

1) The prime minister is not the equivalent of the President, on those terms.
2) The President finds it much easier to get his legislative agenda passed when his own party controls Congress.

Where as in england the prime minister can get his legislation passed because he holds the majority which is why he is the prime minister. Again you are starting to see that the two are not the same. Good for you.

:doh Now you've come full circle. In your previous post, you said there was a benefit to a written constitution. In THIS post, above, you said there's no benefit to a written constitution. And now, here, in the very same post, you say there's a benefit to a written constitution.
This tends to happen when you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Care to copy and paste the words where i said a written constitution was a benefit. But of course you will not because i never did say that. You are just advertising the fact that you lack reading skills or cannot figure out the difference between a codified and uncodified constitution.

The Senate was originally appointed by the state legislatures.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof
Where as the house of lords all members of the House of Lords (excluding 90 hereditary peers elected among themselves and two peers who are ex officio members) are appointed.[4] The membership of the House of Lords is drawn from the peerage and is made up of Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. The Lords Spiritual are 26 bishops in the established Church of England.[5] Of the Lords Temporal, the majority are life peers who are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister,

You really are incredibly ignorant on this matter.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, the Justices are appointed by presidents but do not hold office until they're confirmed by the Senate.

Since April 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission

Once again it is easy to show that you have never bothered to research the differences in how england does things from america. Your ignorance becomes more obvious with each post you make.

1) This has nothing to do with how they're chosen, so this is a complete non-sequitur
2) US courts follow the "political question doctrine," wherein they avoid political areas as well.
Just. Stop.

Right and the conservatives did not use the nuclear option to get a judge elected. You are not even aware of how the politics work in your own country let alone shame yourself by demonstrating your ignorance over another country.

This is not dissimilar to some Constitutional provisions defining the relationship between the House and the Senate, and these are special circumstances. As I said, as a general matter, legislation still has to be passed by both Commons and Lords.

Did you even bother to read the article especially the bit i put in bold. Here i will do it again so you can amuse me by goin into a real twist of dennial again, removed from the House of Lords the power to veto a Bill,

OK, first, you're changing what you said. You said the President doesn't have to "sign off" on laws. He very much does.
Second, the President can't make laws. No, executive orders are not laws.

Executive orders change laws which is the same thing.

These merely describe some of the separations and checks and balances I referred to earlier.
This conversation has gotten too stupid to continue. Learn about these subjects. Until you do, I have little further interest in hearing from you on this

I understand. you are out of your depth, run away with your tattered dignity it is your best option.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Sure, but it's not even a point of typical partisan hackery -- it's an entirely factual, esoteric point which doesn't affect any political issue or argument. It doesn't even matter except as a point of history. So, I really don't get the motivation.

It is like any other cult. You try to gain converts based not upon facts but beliefs. Get enough to agree with you and facts do not matter at all, so long as you share the same beliefs.

Myself, I tend to reject most beliefs, "Right" or Left", especially when it comes to history. History is what it was, not what you want it to be.

 

[Harshaw]

Goals as in freedom, liberty, justice etc. These sort of things are not confined to just one form of governance. different styles attempt to reach the same sort of outcomes or aim for the same goal.

Because you think there is only one way to do things. How parochial of you.

And again you use a word when you lack an argument.

No, they cll themselves english or irish or scottish. And agree they live under the british rule. Not like americans who all agree they are americans first. you obviously have never talked to any from the isles.

So your lack of understanding about national pride in england is evidenced by your not even knowing what they call themselves.

I said that THE english none written constitution was better than your american written constitution. Do you lack the ability to follow a sentence or do you lack the wit to figure out the difference between a written and none written constitution.

Good you make the distinction that is an american thing only not something england has as well. Your starting to get the idea that they are not the same.

Where as in england the prime minister can get his legislation passed because he holds the majority which is why he is the prime minister. Again you are starting to see that the two are not the same. Good for you.

Care to copy and paste the words where i said a written constitution was a benefit. But of course you will not because i never did say that. You are just advertising the fact that you lack reading skills or cannot figure out the difference between a codified and uncodified constitution.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof
Where as the house of lords all members of the House of Lords (excluding 90 hereditary peers elected among themselves and two peers who are ex officio members) are appointed.[4] The membership of the House of Lords is drawn from the peerage and is made up of Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. The Lords Spiritual are 26 bishops in the established Church of England.[5] Of the Lords Temporal, the majority are life peers who are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister,

You really are incredibly ignorant on this matter.

:roll:

What nonsensical, incoherent drivel.

I leave to wallow in your inanity with Article I, section III, of the United States Constitution:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

And I will remind you of what I said:

The Senate was originally appointed by the state legislatures.

Bye, now. :2wave:

 

[soylentgreen]

:roll:

What nonsensical, incoherent drivel.

I leave to wallow in your inanity with Article I, section III, of the United States Constitution:



And I will remind you of what I said:



Bye, now. :2wave:

Which is not how the english do it. Which is what the argument is about. You fail again.

 

[Harshaw]

It is like any other cult. You try to gain converts based not upon facts but beliefs. Get enough to agree with you and facts do not matter at all, so long as you share the same beliefs.

Myself, I tend to reject most beliefs, "Right" or Left", especially when it comes to history. History is what it was, not what you want it to be.

Well, yeah; this is entirely factual matter. No idea what motivates soylentgreen.

 

[American]

I don't understand "a republican through and through" as being a republican has evolved to and fro over the years. The GOP in 1956 was more like today's democrats. The Southern democrats in the 60's, were more like today's republicans.

But I do pay attention to history...... More people should.

View attachment 67215840

:roll:

 

[James972]

I don't understand "a republican through and through" as being a republican has evolved to and fro over the years.

evolved?? if there are only 2 ideas in history there is not much room for evolution. Plato and Aristotle argued over freedom versus govt and so do Modern Republicans and Democrats.

Jefferson formed party in 1792 to stand for freedom from big liberal govt( at the time called Federalist govt) and today Republicans stand for same thing.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I don't understand "a republican through and through" as being a republican has evolved to and fro over the years. The GOP in 1956 was more like today's democrats. The Southern democrats in the 60's, were more like today's republicans.

Really?

Funny, I don't seem to remember seeing Republicans in my lifetime marching in opposition to integration, nor seeing them turning fire hoses and police dogs on peaceful demonstrators.

What you are 100% failing to realize is that the Republicans have not changed, it is the Democrats.

Prior to the 1960's, the Democratic Party was mostly the most Conservative of the 2 parties. But in the counterculture movement came a fundamental shift to the party. First was the unrest that came with the 1968 Democratic Convention, where Anarchists and others fought to take over the party and transform it. And at the same time, the younger generation that was opposed to Jim Crowe was finally coming into it's own. And the South was so firmly locked into the "good old boy" network that nobody who was not in agreement with their policies could hope to get the Democratic Nomination in the region.

And ever since before the Civil War, the Democratic party was a kind of 2 headed beast. You had the more Liberal Northern members, like the Roosevelt clan, and the Kennedy Clan. Then you had the hidebound Conservative Southern Members. Remember, this party has split multiple times since it was founded, including such movements as Dixiecrats and Blue Dog as well as the "Conservative Democrats" that come and go over the years.

But as the Pre-Depression era of Democrats were aging and retiring, the younger and more Liberal ones shifted parties to the Republicans. Primarily over the issue of race, as well as to break the century old power hold the Democrats had in the region.

I am always amused when people talk about the Republicans changing, when it was in reality the Democrats. The Republicans were always a moderate-liberal Party, but after the Democrats shifted they went from far-right to far-left. For an example of this, simply look at the man that none other than Noam Chomsky called the "last Liberal President", and who even President Obama stated was far more Liberal than he was.

He was one of the first to call for a National Health Care system, passed laws to promote treatment instead of incarceration for drug users, opened trade and diplomatic relations with a major Communist country, dumped relations with a Nationalist nation, enacted wage and price freezes, increased Food Stamp funding more than fivefold, and created the EPA, OSHA, the Council on Environmental Quality, and pushed hard for the Clean Air Act.

For those that do not know, that man was Richard Nixon.

He was a Moderate Republican at the time, and was known for working closely with one of the most famous Conservative Democrats during their time in the senate. The two were friends, and even campaigned for each other. And if Nixon had failed to get his party's nomination for President in 1960, he had stated many times he would have endorsed and campaigned for this Democrat.

Of course, that was John Kennedy.

The middle of both parties has largely stayed the same, and the Republicans have shifted a bit to the Right over the decades. But it is the Democrats that made the wild shift around 45-50 years ago. And somebody only has to consider this to realize that fact.

Prior to the Depression, every black member of Congress was a Republican. And even from the election of Arthur Mitchell of Illinois in 1935, every single one was from a Northern or Western state. New York, Illinois, California, Michigan, it goes on and on. Not until 1973 did a black get elected from a former Confederate State (Texas) to Congress as a Democrat. That should show how far that party had shifted in the prior decade.

 

[James972]

The middle of both parties has largely stayed the same,

totally mistaken!! in 17th and 18th Century both parties competed to fulfill promise of Constitution, i.e., to keep states largely free from Federal govt with Jefferson's Republican Party mostly leading the way but from the beginning both drifted toward ever bigger federal govt. Now you have a more complete view of the central issue in American history and in fact in world history!!

 

[Somerville]

It is impossible to hold rational discussions with those who refuse to acknowledge the reality and complexity of human history, never mind the twisted path of the changes in America during the past 60-70 years.

 

[Oozlefinch]

totally mistaken!! in 17th and 18th Century both parties competed to fulfill promise of Constitution, i.e., to keep states largely free from Federal govt with Jefferson's Republican Party mostly leading the way but from the beginning both drifted toward ever bigger federal govt. Now you have a more complete view of the central issue in American history and in fact in world history!!

Once again, your lack of research is showing.

Jefferson did not create the Republican Party. He created the Democratic-Republican Party. This was an off-shoot of the earlier Anti-Federalist movement, and later became the Democratic Party.

And BTW, there were no "parties" at all in the 17th century. At that time the colonies were completely loyal to the crown. And the first party was formed in the last decade of the 18th century.

Please do not bother to reply until you can come up with some facts. The Democratic-Republican party was not formed until 1791. The second political party to be made was in 1828 when the National Republican party was made by John Quincy Adams. This is the party that lasted until 1833, then was dissolved and used as the basis of the Whig Party.

The Whig party lasted until 1854, when it was torn apart over slavery. But it was dissolved and immediately replaced by todays Republican party.

The issues at that time were never about "bigger Federal Government" at all, since at that time there was no such thing at all. The issues that were most core to the 2 competing parties were state rights over Federal rights. Which of course less than a decade later caused the Civil War.

Please, do not try to school me again by giving such wrong or fraudulent information. I suggest you take the time to learn about the early parties, especially the Democratic-Republican and the founding of the Democratic Party, with the National Republican and later Whig Party. Then you might actually be able to give an informed opinion.

 

[James972]

Jefferson did not create the Republican Party.

if this is true I will pay you $10,000 , bet???

 

[James972]

The issues at that time were never about "bigger Federal Government" at all,

No????????Then why did Jefferson and Madison form the Republican Party in 1793???????? It is my honor to welcome you to your first lesson in American History!

 

[Oozlefinch]

if this is true I will pay you $10,000 , bet???

The Democratic-Republican Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and others who believed in an agrarian-based, decentralized, democratic government. The party was established to oppose the Federalists who had supported and pushed through the ratification of the US Constitution. The party came into power with Thomas Jefferson’s election in 1801 and held the nation’s highest office through the election of Andrew Jackson in 1824. Jackson’s election was contentious, however, with the party dividing its support between him and John Quincy Adams. Soon after the 1824 election, the party officially split into the National Republicans (led by Adams and Henry Clay) and the Democratic Party (led by Jackson).

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...ic/timeline-terms/democratic-republican-party

 

[FieldTheorist]

American intellectuals argue that history is a straight line from Aristotle to Jefferson. Aristotle invented the idea of freedom from liberal govt and finally it grew big enough that a county (the USA) could be founded (with Jefferson's help) on the idea. When we study history and think about history this is what should concern us, primarily. Can anyone disagree?

"American intellectuals" is a pretty nebulous and vague term. Do you mean historians, or philosophers, or law professors, political scientists, or none or all?

I mean, if you tailored this discussion to "History is nothing more than the struggle between those who have power and those who don't," even then that's not honestly accurate. A lot of history --in fact, almost all history-- is the struggle for power between those who already have some form of power, generally at the constant expense of those who have little or no power. That has little to do with the concept of "government" (particularly if you contrast the ancient Greek notion of "State" and the modern notion of a "State"). Sometimes the government is involved, sometimes it isn't. The idea that "the government is on the wrong side" is a pretty absurd narrative that the Right favors, largely because its promulgated to them by those with power who want them to vote in a way that either nominally helps or otherwise outright disadvantages the masses who vote. The government acts atrociously and it acts nobly. The same government that kept it's old from starving in the streets with Social Security also invaded Vietnam and caused millions to die. The government that protected African-Americans in the South during the 50's and 60's also committed genocide against the native American population.

If anything, history is a complex story about the power struggle between those who have nothing and the people who have power who constantly vying for more power. One might seriously argue that until we rectify certain errors in human governance, we will continue to to have periods of entrenched violent and non-violent battle between power-holding individuals/institutions, leading to either power concentrations or power vacuums, followed by more bloody transitionary times with small amounts of peacefulness.

There's a rough trajectory of progress and moral improvement. But that being said, we can move off of that track at any point in time if we don't chose to fight for human dignity and social progress. The future of humanity is in humanity's hands, and right now we seem to be in the process of choosing to walk right off of an evolutionary cliff, as we elect authoritarian leaders, commit more and more violence across the world, and continue to destabilize countries across the world. We are inviting nuclear war and environmental destruction, which will lead, if we continue down this path, to the extinction of the human race and the largest extinction event in world history.

 

[James972]

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...ic/timeline-terms/democratic-republican-party

As I said if you have a primary source from 18th Century using term Democratic-Republican Party rather than Republican Party I will pay you $10,000. Bet???

 

[James972]

"History is nothing more than the struggle between those who have power and those who don't,".

wrong of course. The struggle between the King of France and king of England and 10,000,000 similar struggles were merely very common struggles for power among liberal govt types that had occured for 10,000 years. The struggles between Plato/ Aristotle and King of England/ Thomas Jefferson were qualitatively different in that they evolved slowly,secretly, and subtly throughout history and eventually took all of history in a new direction that transformed the entire planet with the conversion of Communist China to Republican capitalist China being the latest example.

 

[James972]

If anything, history is a complex story about the power struggle between those who have nothing and the people who have power who constantly vying for more power. .

again you are making the same mistake you are taking about millions of events in history. The historians job is to see the trend in all the events. That trend is the evolution of freedom from big liberal govt, and the concomitant emergence of the individual.