Democracy V Republic

gfm7175 · Nov 24, 2018

Rich2018 said:
...deleted Argument by Repetition Fallacy...

I have countered all of these arguments already... You have made no new arguments...

Rich2018 · Nov 25, 2018

gfm7175 said:
I already countered all of those points. My counterarguments still remain unaddressed.

Can't see the bit about the fallacy of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution.

gfm7175 · Nov 25, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Can't see the bit about the fallacy of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has no such power. Show me (using the Constitution) where the Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to interpret it...

Rich2018 · Nov 25, 2018

gfm7175 said:
...this arbitrary website is not an authority over the US Constitution....the Constitution can be AMENDED, not replaced....

Being wrong fallacy

Article V states the process by which a Constitutional Convention can be called.

There are technically no limits to what this convention could do. So it could repeal the entire US Constitution and write a new one, article by article.

inversion Fallacy

Not knowing your own country fallacy

...there is no such fallacy

Incorrectness fallacy

...they have no such Constitutionally granted power

The mission of the SC is stated on it's OWN web page - it interprets the Constitution

Again have you not heard of legal "test cases" or courts "setting a precedent?"

Sorry but if the SC Justices say that their role is to interpret the law, who are you to argue ?

If the SC doesn't interpret the law, how come there are split decisions ?

...I gave you an example already... Ancient Greece was a Democracy

No because "ancient Greece" wasn't a democracy. It wasnt a political entity
Read some history - you clearly know nothing about the period

Historical fallacy

...there are no surviving Democracies at the moment

You're living in one, it's a pretty long list

Where it says that the UK is not a democracy. Your opinion doesn't count

...Inversion Fallacy. YOU don't know the definitions and where the definitions originated from. You deny history...

Being wrong fallacy

You clearly do not know what a democracy is. You also do not know what a republic is (other than the USA is one).

You seem to hold the idea that because the USA is a republic, then any other republic MUST show the same characteristics as the USA

...mob rule doesn't exist in any stable government ever. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE NO DEMOCRACIES IN EXISTENCE TODAY

So "ancient Greece" was not stable (forgetting for a moment that you don't know that ancient Greece was not actually a political entity) ?

Can you give any examples of how "mob rule" has ever destabilized a democracy ?

...I already gave you an instance. Ancient Greece was a Democracy, but it dissolved as all Democracies do...

See above, "ancient Greece" didn't dissolve (as it never existed as a country in the first place) so wasn't a democracy

Not knowing anything about history fallacy

...History. These forms of government were defined by Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. They defined the terms Republic and Democracy...

You now don't know what "authority" means.

Go ahead and give the definitions of "democracy" and "republic" as defined by "ancient" Greece & "Rome".

Not knowing what you're talking abut fallacy

quote]...I'm not inserting my opinions into anything....[/quote]

Yes you are, you're making statements like "The UK is not a democracy" without anything to back that up. You're stating things as fact with no sources.

You claim that "History" is your source. Go ahead and prove it.

...as I've ALREADY said, "democratically elected" and "Democracy" are TWO... COMPLETELY... DIFFERENT... TERMS... THAT... MEAN... TWO... COMPLETELY... DIFFERENT... THINGS...

As has been pointed out to you - democratically electing members of the government (any of its branches) is called "Representative Democracy". The people elect representatives NOT delegates.

Pure or more correctly "direct" democracy NEVER existed, anywhere. Not even in your mythical country of "Ancient Greece". Direct democracy can only work in very small groups.

So when I say the USA and UK (and all the others mentioned) are democracies, they are specifically Representative Democracies. Both countries enjoy and employ a democratic process.

Is this clear now ???

...government officials can be democratically elected under numerous different forms of government (including Republics and Oligarchies, NOT just Democracies)...

Oh this is going to be good - by government officials do you mean cabinet members or presidential staff ? Exactly who are you referring to be "government officials". Every soldier in the US army could be technically described as a government official.

Go on and explain how oligarchies can elect members of the government (that is the executive, the legislature and the judiciary) ....

Do you actually know what an "Oligarchy" is. Can you give an example of one ?

...Inversion Fallacy....

Not knowing what you're talking about fallacy

...makes no difference... No 'holy link' legitimizes or delegitimizes history...

In other words you can't (as expected) and you're just spouting YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION

Personal opinion fallacy

...they are wrong. They deny history....

Personal opinion fallacy

Rich2018 · Nov 25, 2018

gfm7175 said:
The Supreme Court has no such power. Show me (using the Constitution) where the Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to interpret it...

"The Supreme Court is the only federal judicial body established by the Constitution itself, specifically in Article III, which begins: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Judicial power

Here's an example:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/14-00981qp.pdf

Notice the word "Interpret"

Again you're confusing YOUR opinion with fact. The US Supreme court says it interprets the law. You say it doesn't.
Who should I believe ?

Rich2018 · Nov 25, 2018

gfm7175 said:
The Supreme Court has no such power. Show me (using the Constitution) where the Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to interpret it...

Have you read any of the Supreme Court thread ?

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Being wrong fallacy

There is no such fallacy in Logic.

Fallacy Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Article V states the process by which a Constitutional Convention can be called.

There are technically no limits to what this convention could do. So it could repeal the entire US Constitution and write a new one, article by article.

Yes, and going through that process would be AMENDING the Constitution, as I have repeatedly said...

Rich2018 said:
Not knowing your own country fallacy

There is no such fallacy in Logic.

Fallacy Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Incorrectness fallacy

There is no such fallacy in Logic.

Fallacy Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
The mission of the SC is stated on it's OWN web page - it interprets the Constitution

False Authority Fallacy. SCOTUS does not have the authority to override the US Constitution to grant themselves power of interpretation. The SCOTUS website is wrong. Point me to the specific Constitutional language "granting" SCOTUS "power of interpretation"... I'm still waiting...

Rich2018 said:
Again have you not heard of legal "test cases" or courts "setting a precedent?"

Yes, I have heard of those things. Those things are irrelevant to this discussion though. Where specifically in the Constitution is SCOTUS granted the power to interpret the Constitution? I'm still waiting...

Rich2018 said:
Sorry but if the SC Justices say that their role is to interpret the law, who are you to argue?

Appeal to (False) Authority Fallacy. In this case it happens to be a false authority. SCOTUS can say whatever they want, but in the end, they are still wrong, and still need to operate under the US Constitution. SCOTUS was never constitutionally granted the power to interpret the Constitution. Again, show me this constitutional language granting SCOTUS such a power...

Rich2018 said:
If the SC doesn't interpret the law, how come there are split decisions?

Because different SCOTUS members happen to have different biases and personal agendas...

Rich2018 said:
No because "ancient Greece" wasn't a democracy. It wasnt a political entity

Yes it was, and yes it was.

Rich2018 said:
Read some history - you clearly know nothing about the period

Inversion Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Historical fallacy

Fallacy Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
You're living in one, it's a pretty long list

No, I am not. I am living in a Federated Republic.

Rich2018 said:
Where it says that the UK is not a democracy. Your opinion doesn't count/quote]
English works better...

Rich2018 said:

Being wrong fallacy

Click to expand...

Fallacy Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:

You clearly do not know what a democracy is. You also do not know what a republic is (other than the USA is one).

Click to expand...

Inversion Fallacy doubling as a "lack of intelligence" mantra...

Rich2018 said:

You seem to hold the idea that because the USA is a republic, then any other republic MUST show the same characteristics as the USA

Click to expand...

Strawman Argument Fallacy. I have never asserted such a thing. I have asserted that a Republic is a constitutional form of government. That's all a Republic is... it is 'Constitutional rule'...

Rich2018 said:

So "ancient Greece" was not stable (forgetting for a moment that you don't know that ancient Greece was not actually a political entity) ?

Click to expand...

It wasn't stable because Democracies don't work...

Rich2018 said:

Can you give any examples of how "mob rule" has ever destabilized a democracy ?

Click to expand...

Ancient Greece.

Rich2018 said:

See above, "ancient Greece" didn't dissolve (as it never existed as a country in the first place) so wasn't a democracy

Click to expand...

Greece wasn't a country back then? Stop trying to rewrite history...

Rich2018 said:

Not knowing anything about history fallacy

Click to expand...

Fallacy Fallacy. Inversion Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:

...deleted lack of intelligence mantra...

Click to expand...

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

...continued...

Rich2018 said:
Go ahead and give the definitions of "democracy" and "republic" as defined by "ancient" Greece & "Rome".

I already have... Democracy is "mob rule" (rule of men) and Republic is "constitutional rule" (rule of law).

Rich2018 said:
Not knowing what you're talking abut fallacy

Fallacy Fallacy. Inversion Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Yes you are, you're making statements like "The UK is not a democracy" without anything to back that up. You're stating things as fact with no sources.

No, I'm not. My source is history. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome defined these terms, and originated these forms of governments... A "source" isn't always a website or a book ... Also, a fact doesn't need sources. A fact is agreed upon predicate. That's all a fact is. Learn what a fact is.

Rich2018 said:
You claim that "History" is your source. Go ahead and prove it.

I've already laid out my counterargument to your BS... You have yet to effectively counter it...

Rich2018 said:
As has been pointed out to you - democratically electing members of the government (any of its branches) is called "Representative Democracy". The people elect representatives NOT delegates.

Wrong. It is not called "Representative Democracy". It is simply a particular method of electing representatives; that method has NOTHING to do with Democracies, Republics, Oligarchies, nor ANY other form of government.

Rich2018 said:
Pure or more correctly "direct" democracy NEVER existed, anywhere.

Revisionist History. It existed in Ancient Greece. It crumbled, as all Democracies do...

Rich2018 said:
Not even in your mythical country of "Ancient Greece".

Revisionist History.

Rich2018 said:
Direct democracy can only work in very small groups.

Not even that, really...

Rich2018 said:
So when I say the USA and UK (and all the others mentioned) are democracies, they are specifically Representative Democracies. Both countries enjoy and employ a democratic process.

Argument by Repetition Fallacy. I've already countered this argument of yours, yet you keep repeating it as if that will somehow make it correct...

Rich2018 said:
Is this clear now ???

I'm well aware of what you are arguing, but you happen to be wrong because you are attempting to re-write history...

Rich2018 said:
Oh this is going to be good - by government officials do you mean cabinet members or presidential staff ?

Yes, they would be included.

Rich2018 said:
Exactly who are you referring to be "government officials".

See above, plus representatives/senators, etc...

Rich2018 said:
Every soldier in the US army could be technically described as a government official.

They could... This is irrelevant though...

Rich2018 said:
Go on and explain how oligarchies can elect members of the government (that is the executive, the legislature and the judiciary) ....

The same way that Democracies and Republics can do so...

Rich2018 said:
Do you actually know what an "Oligarchy" is. Can you give an example of one?

Yes, I do, and the UK would be an example of one.

Rich2018 said:
Not knowing what you're talking about fallacy

Fallacy Fallacy. Inversion Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
In other words you can't (as expected) and you're just spouting YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION

Inversion Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Personal opinion fallacy

Fallacy Fallacy. Inversion Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Personal opinion fallacy

Fallacy Fallacy. Inversion Fallacy.

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

Rich2018 said:
"The Supreme Court is the only federal judicial body established by the Constitution itself, specifically in Article III, which begins: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Judicial power

Here's an example:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/14-00981qp.pdf

Notice the word "Interpret"

Again you're confusing YOUR opinion with fact. The US Supreme court says it interprets the law. You say it doesn't.
Who should I believe ?

False Authority Fallacy. SCOTUS doesn't define their own powers, the US Constitution does...

"Judicial Power", as mentioned in Article III isn't mentioning any specific powers. It is merely constructing the foundation of the judiciary (as one supreme court and [if desired] other inferior courts).

Again, WHERE in the CONSTITUTION does it state that SCOTUS was granted the power of interpreting the Constitution?

You haven't shown me any Constitutional language supporting this...

I have already countered your argument that SCOTUS supposedly defines their own powers...

I am not the one making these claims... this is what the US Constitution says... The US Constitution is the proper authority here, NOT me, NOT you, NOT SCOTUS...

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Have you read any of the Supreme Court thread ?

I've been in many threads; I don't remember if I was ever in that one...

And that thread isn't authoritative of anything... The US Constitution is the proper authority... NOT me, NOT you, NOT SCOTUS, NOT any arbitrary website, book, thread, committee, expert, etc. etc...

Rich2018 · Nov 26, 2018

gfm7175 said:
There is no such fallacy in Logic...

Not know about the being wrong fallacy, fallacy

...yes, and going through that process would be AMENDING the Constitution, as I have repeatedly said...

It could, according to what I've read, replace the entire existing constitution, repealing every last bit of it. So yes a Constitutional Convention CAN replace the existing Constitution

...there is no such fallacy in Logic....

You're still wrong fallacy

...the SCOTUS does not have the authority to override the US Constitution to grant themselves power of interpretation. The SCOTUS website is wrong. Point me to the specific Constitutional language "granting" SCOTUS "power of interpretation"... I'm still waiting...

The SC's role is to interpret the Constitution...they say so themselves. They say so in numerous rulings that they've made.

Authority fallacy, they know more about it that you do.

This isn't over-riding the Constitution, it is interpreting what it means. You lack of any legal knowledge is confusing you.

...Yes, I have heard of those things. Those things are irrelevant to this discussion though. Where specifically in the Constitution is SCOTUS granted the power to interpret the Constitution? I'm still waiting...

Try reading the SC web page. Or the Supreme Court thread.
Opinion is that you are wrong

...SCOTUS can say whatever they want, but in the end, they are still wrong, and still need to operate under the US Constitution. SCOTUS was never constitutionally granted the power to interpret the Constitution. Again, show me this constitutional language granting SCOTUS such a power...

The SC has the role and the DUTY to interpret the Constitution. How else is it to fulfill its role ?

We can all read, so we all know what the Constitution says...but how do we know what it means?
There are many differences of opinion...so the SC is the final word.

In fact all courts interpret the law...or fall back on previous cases where a previous court had.

I'm still trying to get over how the Supreme Court web site is wrong and you are right. Where did you go to law school ?

...yes it was, and yes it was....

LOL, you go from bad to worse

I await your amusing sources on the political entity known as "ancient Greece" - who was their first king?
Are you Into The Night in disguise because you're just like him, spouting utter nonsense and refusing to offer anything by way of sources or evidence other than your own opinion.

Being utterly wrong fallacy

...no, I am not. I am living in a Federated Republic....

Whose form of government is a Representative Democracy

...English works better...

Your opinion is worthless.

Come up with sources

...I have never asserted such a thing. I have asserted that a Republic is a constitutional form of government. That's all a Republic is... it is 'Constitutional rule'...

And in that you are wrong

Many republics are or have been anything but constitutional.

USSR
North Korea
PRC
Nazi Germany
Saddam's Iraq

Again you do not know what a republic is, except that the USA is one. You therefore assign a criteria for determining a republic based on US politics

...it wasn't stable because Democracies don't work...

Since you're a student of ancient history, can you provide any examples of "ancient Greece" being destabilized by its democracy ?

...Ancient Greece....

And what happened, and where, and when?

Do you still think that "ancient Greece" was a country ?

...Greece wasn't a country back then? Stop trying to rewrite history...

LOL

You are becoming a joke....again your opinions don't count.

It's obvious you have no historical knowledge at all. Indeed you have no political knowledge and have never read a book on politics, ancient history or law much less have studied it.

Yet you know more about the Constitution of the USA than the Supreme Court does!

SMH.

Rich2018 · Nov 26, 2018

gfm7175 said:
I've been in many threads; I don't remember if I was ever in that one...

And that thread isn't authoritative of anything... The US Constitution is the proper authority... NOT me, NOT you, NOT SCOTUS, NOT any arbitrary website, book, thread, committee, expert, etc. etc...

The whole world is wrong.

You know more than the Supreme Court of the USA

Where did you go to law school ?

Rich2018 · Nov 26, 2018

gfm7175 said:
...I am not the one making these claims... this is what the US Constitution says... The US Constitution is the proper authority here, NOT me, NOT you, NOT SCOTUS...

And who determines what the Constitution means or allows or requires ?

Rich2018 · Nov 26, 2018

gfm7175 said:
...continued...

I already have... Democracy is "mob rule" (rule of men) and Republic is "constitutional rule" (rule of law)....

No, those are your ignorant (and wrong) ideas...

Sources please.

Your personal opinion is worthless

...my source is history. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome defined these terms, and originated these forms of governments... A "source" isn't always a website or a book ... Also, a fact doesn't need sources. A fact is agreed upon predicate. That's all a fact is. Learn what a fact is....

A fact is what you can prove

So go ahead and give proper sources. Your opinion doesn't count

You don't know what a democracy or a republic is, all you have is some warped opinion....based on nothing at all

...I've already laid out my counterargument to your BS... You have yet to effectively counter it...

No you've laid out your ignorant opinion

I've told you what democracy and representative democracy is and where to find definitions. No web search you will do will come remotely close to your ignorant notions

But then again you will claim the content of any book or web page false if it conflicts with your pre-held ideas. You've even said the Supreme Court of the USA's web page is wrong .... and that you know better about the role of the SC than they do.
Again, what law school did you go to ?

...wrong. It is not called "Representative Democracy". It is simply a particular method of electing representatives; that method has NOTHING to do with Democracies, Republics, Oligarchies, nor ANY other form of government....

Representative Democracy: "...a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

...revisionist History. It existed in Ancient Greece. It crumbled, as all Democracies do...

Can you tell me when your claimed democracy in ancient Greece occurred ? Dates, places etc ? When it crumbled and any specific examples of how its democracy destabilized it ?
Of course you can't because you know NOTHING of ancient Greece.

Ancient Greece was not a country. It wasn't a political entity...despite your claims that it was

The UK is a democracy...and has yet to crumble

Te USA is a democracy and seems to be doing fine so far...though its democracy is under attack from its current president.

...Not even that, really...

I mean very small group. Like a handful of people at most.

...Argument by Repetition Fallacy. I've already countered this argument of yours, yet you keep repeating it as if that will somehow make it correct...

You constantly deny that the UK and USA aren't democracies

But the only evidence you give is YOUR OPINION. Sorry that's worthless to me.

I've asked you where you get your information...a renowned university perhaps? You perhaps studied law and politics...you were lectured by well respected professors
But no, the only source you give is "ancient history". LOL

...you are attempting to re-write history

Even if I were, how would you know since you clearly don't know any?

...yes, they would be included....

You said "...government officials can be democratically elected under numerous different forms of government (including Republics and Oligarchies, NOT just Democracies)..."

And your say this includes cabinet members and presidential staff
In what countries are cabinet members or presidential staff elected ?

In what oligarchies is anyone elected ?

It's obvious you don't know what an oligarchy is...do you have a source for a definition ?
No of course not, they're all wrong anyway, you just have your personal opinion

...yes, I do, and the UK would be an example of one....

Your personal opinion is meaningless

Again you prove you don't understand any political terms. Who says that the UK is an oligarchy ?

Explain what makes a country an "oligarchy"

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Not know about the being wrong fallacy, fallacy

Fallacy Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
It could, according to what I've read, replace the entire existing constitution, repealing every last bit of it. So yes a Constitutional Convention CAN replace the existing Constitution

No, it is amending the Constitution. One either abides by it (amending it) or else one overthrows it (by instituting a completely different form of government, typically by compulsion).

Rich2018 said:
You're still wrong fallacy

Fallacy Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
The SC's role is to interpret the Constitution...they say so themselves. They say so in numerous rulings that they've made.

Argument by Repetition Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Authority fallacy, they know more about it that you do.

Fallacy Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
This isn't over-riding the Constitution, it is interpreting what it means... DELETED 'lack of intelligence' mantra...

Nope, it is overriding it...

Rich2018 said:
Try reading the SC web page. Or the Supreme Court thread.
Opinion is that you are wrong

False Authority Fallacy. Argument by Repetition Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
The SC has the role and the DUTY to interpret the Constitution.

Argument by Repetition Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
How else is it to fulfill its role ?

By adhering to the powers granted to it by the US Constitution.

Rich2018 said:
We can all read, so we all know what the Constitution says...but how do we know what it means?

Through reading and comprehension.

Rich2018 said:
There are many differences of opinion...so the SC is the final word.

No, it is not. The US Constitution is the final word.

Rich2018 said:
In fact all courts interpret the law...or fall back on previous cases where a previous court had.

They adhere to it and enforce it; they don't interpret it.

Rich2018 said:
I'm still trying to get over how the Supreme Court web site is wrong and you are right.

Because my source is the US Constitution, which is the governing force of this Federated Republic.

Rich2018 said:
Where did you go to law school ?

Bulverism Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
LOL, you go from bad to worse

I await your amusing sources on the political entity known as "ancient Greece" - who was their first king?

History is my source. And they didn't have a king; they were a Democracy.

Rich2018 said:
Are you Into The Night in disguise because you're just like him, spouting utter nonsense and refusing to offer anything by way of sources or evidence other than your own opinion.

Compositional Error Fallacy, specifically bigotry. I'm not interested in your bigotry...

Rich2018 said:
Being utterly wrong fallacy

Fallacy Fallacy

Rich2018 said:
Whose form of government is a Representative Democracy

A form of government doesn't have a form of government. There is only a form of government, and that form is a Federated Republic.

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

...continued...

Rich2018 said:
Your opinion is worthless.

This is not my opinion. This is recorded history...

Rich2018 said:
Come up with sources

I already did.

Rich2018 said:
And in that you are wrong

No I am not.

Rich2018 said:
Many republics are or have been anything but constitutional.

Wrong. Those "Republics" are not Republics then...

Rich2018 said:
USSR

NOT a Republic... An Oligarchy...

Rich2018 said:
North Korea

NOT a Republic... A Dictatorship (under "Rocket Man")...

Rich2018 said:
PRC

NOT a Republic... An Oligarchy...

Rich2018 said:
Nazi Germany

NOT a Republic... A Dictatorship (under Adolf Hitler)...

Rich2018 said:
Saddam's Iraq

NOT a Republic... A Dictatorship (under Saddam Hussein)...

Rich2018 said:
Again you do not know what a republic is, except that the USA is one. You therefore assign a criteria for determining a republic based on US politics

Inversion Fallacy. Argument by Repetition Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Since you're a student of ancient history, can you provide any examples of "ancient Greece" being destabilized by its democracy ?

The example that it did not last very long as a form of government is a good example, I would think...

Rich2018 said:
And what happened, and where, and when?

Study up on it then; I'm not doing your homework for you.

Rich2018 said:
Do you still think that "ancient Greece" was a country ?

It's not my opinion; it's recorded history.

Rich2018 said:
LOL

You are becoming a joke....again your opinions don't count.

Argumentum Ad Hominem Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
It's obvious you have no historical knowledge at all. Indeed you have no political knowledge and have never read a book on politics, ancient history or law much less have studied it.

Inversion Fallacy... 'lack of intelligence' mantra...

Rich2018 said:
Yet you know more about the Constitution of the USA than the Supreme Court does!

Yes, I do.

Rich2018 said:
SMH.

Since you can't move beyond fallacious argumentation, I'm done here... nice talking to ya...

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

Rich2018 said:
The whole world is wrong.

Compositional Error Fallacy, specifically bigotry... I'm not interested in your bigotry...

Rich2018 said:
You know more than the Supreme Court of the USA

On this topic, yes I do.

Rich2018 said:
Where did you go to law school ?

Bulverism Fallacy.

Since you can't debate in a non-fallacious manner, we're done here...

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

Rich2018 said:
And who determines what the Constitution means or allows or requires ?

The States own the Constitution. The words written within it mean what they meant at the time that those words were ratified by the States...

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

Rich2018 said:
No, those are your ignorant (and wrong) ideas...

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Sources please.

History.

Rich2018 said:
Your personal opinion is worthless

Not my opinion...

Rich2018 said:
A fact is what you can prove

WRONG. A fact is accepted predicate. Facts are meant to speed up conversation. That's all facts are. A fact doesn't have to be proven; in fact, a fact can even be wrong and still be a fact. If we both agree that God exists, that would be a fact between us. If not, then it returns back to being an argument.

Rich2018 said:
So go ahead and give proper sources. Your opinion doesn't count

Already did...

Rich2018 said:
You don't know what a democracy or a republic is, all you have is some warped opinion....based on nothing at all

'Lack of Intelligence' Mantra... Inversion Fallacy... Argument by Repetition Fallacy...

Rich2018 said:
No you've laid out your ignorant opinion

Denial of History...

Rich2018 said:
I've told you what democracy and representative democracy is and where to find definitions. No web search you will do will come remotely close to your ignorant notions

False Authority Fallacy... Arbitrary websites do not define the terms 'democracy' and 'republic'...

Rich2018 said:
But then again you will claim the content of any book or web page false if it conflicts with your pre-held ideas.

No, it's false if it denies History... Many books and websites deny History...

Rich2018 said:
You've even said the Supreme Court of the USA's web page is wrong .... and that you know better about the role of the SC than they do.

Yes I did say that, and yes I do know better about the role of SCOTUS than SCOTUS does... I stand by what I said...

Rich2018 said:
Again, what law school did you go to ?

Bulverism Fallacy.

Rich2018 said:
Representative Democracy: "...a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Wikipedia article ignored on sight. Wikipedia is a very bad source as it is often incomplete, misinformed, and can be edited by anyone. False Authority Fallacy. Wikipedia does not have the authority to define any word...

Rich2018 said:
Can you tell me when your claimed democracy in ancient Greece occurred ? Dates, places etc ?

Around 500BC... In Greece...

Rich2018 said:
When it crumbled and any specific examples of how its democracy destabilized it ?

About 100 years later... special interest groups...

Rich2018 said:
Of course you can't because you know NOTHING of ancient Greece.

I can and I did.

gfm7175 · Nov 26, 2018

...continued...

Rich2018 said:
Ancient Greece was not a country. It wasn't a political entity...despite your claims that it was

Revisionist History...

Rich2018 said:
The UK is a democracy...and has yet to crumble

NOT a Democracy... An Oligarchy...

Rich2018 said:
Te USA is a democracy and seems to be doing fine so far...though its democracy is under attack from its current president.

NOT a Democracy... A Federated Republic...

The President can't attack a form of government which doesn't exist...

Rich2018 said:
I mean very small group. Like a handful of people at most.

Yup, I understand what you mean. It still doesn't work very well, especially for the people who are in the minority...

Rich2018 said:
You constantly deny that the UK and USA aren't democracies

Double negative... I don't deny that they aren't Democracies... I deny that they ARE Democracies... That is because the UK is an Oligarchy and the USA is a Federated Republic.

Rich2018 said:
But the only evidence you give is YOUR OPINION. Sorry that's worthless to me.

Define 'evidence'... And this is not my opinion; this is history...

Rich2018 said:
I've asked you where you get your information...

And I've told you... from HISTORY...

Rich2018 said:
a renowned university perhaps?

Nope... That would be a False Authority Fallacy doubling as a Bulverism Fallacy. No 'prestige', 'certification', 'expertise', or the likewise can hold authority over History...

Rich2018 said:
You perhaps studied law and politics...you were lectured by well respected professors

I have studied neither, nor was I lectured by anyone special...
Bulverism Fallacy...

Rich2018 said:
But no, the only source you give is "ancient history". LOL

Yes, because that is the authoritative source for these definitions...

Rich2018 said:
Even if I were, how would you know since you clearly don't know any?

'Lack of Intelligence' mantra dismissed on sight...

Rich2018 said:
You said "...government officials can be democratically elected under numerous different forms of government (including Republics and Oligarchies, NOT just Democracies)..."

And your say this includes cabinet members and presidential staff
In what countries are cabinet members or presidential staff elected ?

In what oligarchies is anyone elected ?

Irrelevant.

Rich2018 said:
It's obvious you don't know what an oligarchy is...do you have a source for a definition ?

Rich2018 said:
...DELETED various other mantras due to fatigue...

You continue to argue fallaciously... I am done here...

Rich2018 · Nov 26, 2018

gfm7175 said:
...it is amending the Constitution. One either abides by it (amending it) or else one overthrows it (by instituting a completely different form of government, typically by compulsion)....

Or one replaces it, such as a Constitutional Convention has the power to do.

You can call it amending if you want, but if it replaces every article it is replacement

Thomas Jefferson actually said that the Constitution needed to be re-written every 20 years.

....nope, it is overriding it...

Argument by repetition fallacy

Nope, that would be amending the Constitution.
Even you can read what the Constitution says, but you can't say what it means.

......adhering to the powers granted to it by the US Constitution....

Authority fallacy - your opinion is worthless. Especially next to the opinion of the SC itself.

...through reading and comprehension....

And when there's disagreement - who decides what the Constitution means?

...the US Constitution is the final word....

And who says what that final word means ?

Eg: the Constitution says that failure to complete a 10-yearly census shall result in a fine of not more than $100
So how much can the government fine a citizen for not completing the census?

...They adhere to it and enforce it; they don't interpret it...

Nope, they interpret it
They say so themselves

What is your authority to say otherwise?
What law school did you attend?
Your opinion is worthless.

I note you continually refuse to give any indication where you studied the Constitution.

...my source is the US Constitution, which is the governing force of this Federated Republic....

And the SC uses the exact same source

They have degrees in law, constitutional law, have practiced law...

You have ????????????????????

...history is my source. And they didn't have a king; they were a Democracy....

Leonidas was a king wasn't he ?

Go on then, give me a date, a place where your mythical country of "Ancient Greece" existed.

Give me a source or two so I can look up the nonsense you're parroting.

...I'm not interested in your bigotry...

I'm not interested in your opinions only facts you can back up

So far all you've done is repeat nonsense. Not a single source/link/reference

EVERYTHING you say is just your IGNORANT opinion

And no, "history" is not a source, a historian's writing is a source. Not that you understand and even want to.

...there is only a form of government, and that form is a Federated Republic.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Rarely do you come across someone who claims to know so much, yet actually knows so little.

iguanaman · Nov 26, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
Difference being that in a Constitutional Republic individual people have Rights. Other forms of democracy are generally more about tyranny of the majority.

So our current tyranny of the minority is preferable? Next year we will be seeing why our Govt. has remained for so long. Tyranny is unacceptable whether it is the minority or the majority in power.

Rich2018 · Nov 26, 2018

gfm7175 said:
...continued...

This is not my opinion. This is recorded history...

Nope it's your opinion and it's worthless.

...I already did....

"History" is not a source

In what book was it written? On what web page? Who was the author ?

...No I am not....

Your opinion is worthless

...wrong. Those "Republics" are not Republics then...

Your opinion is worthless

You don't know what a republic is.

[quote}...NOT a Republic... An Oligarchy...NOT a Republic... A Dictatorship (under "Rocket Man")...NOT a Republic... An Oligarchy...NOT a Republic... A Dictatorship (under Adolf Hitler)...NOT a Republic... A Dictatorship (under Saddam Hussein)...[/quote]

Wrong, they were or are ALL republics

Proving you don't know what a republic is

(or an oligarchy or a democracy...or anything)
You have no knowledge of politics. All you have are ignorant pre-conceived ideas.

Hint: China is called the PRC (what does the "R" stand for?)

...The example that it did not last very long as a form of government is a good example, I would think...

The question was "can you provide any examples of "ancient Greece" being destabilized by its democracy ?"

To spell it out since you seem determined to dodge and avoid exposing your ignorance: What event(s) and in what year(s) caused "ancient Greece" to be destabilized by its democracy?
Was it an unpopular law?

...I'm not doing your homework for you....

You've never done any homework
You don't know anything

...it's recorded history....

No it's not

You're making it up. None of what you said is true

...yes, I do....

LMAO

...I'm done here...

Yeah, go teach the Supreme Court some law

Rich2018 · Nov 26, 2018

gfm7175 said:
The States own the Constitution. The words written within it mean what they meant at the time that those words were ratified by the States...

Source ?

Rich2018 · Nov 26, 2018

gfm7175 said:
...Around 500BC... In Greece...

About 100 years later... special interest groups...

I can and I did.

Awesome two dates plucked at random.