• 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!

The minority majority

Terryj said:
Rich, how the federal government operates is spelled out in the constitution...
Click to expand...


To some degree yes.

What is in the Constitution to stop the president from creating a Department of Space Exploration with a cabinet secretary ?

What is in the Constitution to stop the president from taking advice from foreign governments ?

The Constitution is merely a set of laws the US government (and to a small degree people in the USA) must abide by.



...however, while the constitution guarantees each State a Republican form of government, each State is free to establish its own government as long as it doesn't violate the constitution. For example, I live in Oregon and Oregon incorporates both Representative form of government and a direct democracy form of government. Oregon allows for Representatives to introduce laws and to enact laws, it also allows for "referendums" these are laws and policies that the general voting population can decide if they want them to become laws or not, in this application, the majority wins as long as it does not violate both the Constitution of Oregon or the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...


You are correct.

However, AFAIK, every US state practices representative democracy - though as you say, some states do practice limited forms of direct or pure democracy where a simply majority is enough to pass a law/measure etc.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's the best you can do after three+ months. WTF?
Click to expand...

Timeframe has nothing to do with it. I only just saw it now while searching for something else.
The Right wing tropes about pure democracy are utter nonsense.
No country is a pure democracy, no country ever was a pure democracy, and at best a few ancient nation-states attempted it.
Since then, most republics adopted representative democracy as a means of electing leadership at all levels, thus if a constitutional republic allows more than one political party and holds free and at least somewhat fair elections, and allows principles of free speech/press at least at some levels, it is generally referred to as "a democracy".

But today's Right screeches in horror, as if the reference is a threat and incompatible with the notion of a constitutional republic.
This is not because they cannot comprehend the notion of democracy functioning within the framework of a republic, it's because they are intent on portraying democracy as dangerous. This is an attempt to inoculate against a groundswell of resistance when they try to implement authoritarian totalitarianism in its place.

If the people have no understanding of modern democracy, they won't miss it when it is taken away.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Timeframe has nothing to do with it. I only just saw it now while searching for something else.
The Right wing tropes about pure democracy are utter nonsense.
No country is a pure democracy, no country ever was a pure democracy, and at best a few ancient nation-states attempted it.
Since then, most republics adopted representative democracy as a means of electing leadership at all levels, thus if a constitutional republic allows more than one political party and holds free and at least somewhat fair elections, and allows principles of free speech/press at least at some levels, it is generally referred to as "a democracy".

But today's Right screeches in horror, as if the reference is a threat and incompatible with the notion of a constitutional republic.
This is not because they cannot comprehend the notion of democracy functioning within the framework of a republic, it's because they are intent on portraying democracy as dangerous. This is an attempt to inoculate against a groundswell of resistance when they try to implement authoritarian totalitarianism in its place.

If the people have no understanding of modern democracy, they won't miss it when it is taken away.
Click to expand...

mob rule is dangerous.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Timeframe has nothing to do with it. I only just saw it now while searching for something else.
The Right wing tropes about pure democracy are utter nonsense.
No country is a pure democracy, no country ever was a pure democracy, and at best a few ancient nation-states attempted it.
Since then, most republics adopted representative democracy as a means of electing leadership at all levels, thus if a constitutional republic allows more than one political party and holds free and at least somewhat fair elections, and allows principles of free speech/press at least at some levels, it is generally referred to as "a democracy".

But today's Right screeches in horror, as if the reference is a threat and incompatible with the notion of a constitutional republic.
This is not because they cannot comprehend the notion of democracy functioning within the framework of a republic, it's because they are intent on portraying democracy as dangerous. This is an attempt to inoculate against a groundswell of resistance when they try to implement authoritarian totalitarianism in its place.

If the people have no understanding of modern democracy, they won't miss it when it is taken away.
Click to expand...

democracy is collective by nature and collectivism in law making makes for an unstable government.

the founders created a mixed government republic, with a republican form of government, not a democratic form of government
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
mob rule is dangerous.
Click to expand...

You're actually referring to representative democracy as mob rule?
Well, of course you are, you also believe that the Senate should be appointed, I forgot...you're in favor of repealing the 17A.
Just how far do you wish to go in restricting the right of people to vote and elect their leaders anyway?
White male property owners in good fiscal standing only??

Did you want to outlaw all Democrats from holding elected office, too?
 
Master PO said:
democracy is collective by nature and collectivism is law making makes for an unstable government.

the founders created a mixed government republic, with a republican form of government, not a democratic form of government
Click to expand...

See? There it is again. You can't even stick to the topic of democratic elections.
The founders created a mixed government republic, the leadership of which is democratically elected.
I know this rubs you guys the wrong way but at least for now, that two hundred forty-two year tradition continues.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You're actually referring to representative democracy as mob rule?
Well, of course you are, you also believe that the Senate should be appointed, I forgot...you're in favor of repealing the 17A.
Just how far do you wish to go in restricting the right of people to vote and elect their leaders anyway?
White male property owners in good fiscal standing only??

Did you want to outlaw all Democrats from holding elected office, too?
Click to expand...

1) yes I support repealing the 17th amendment, 2) the 16th amendment and 3) most of the FDR expansions of the commerce clause
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You're actually referring to representative democracy as mob rule?
Well, of course you are, you also believe that the Senate should be appointed, I forgot...you're in favor of repealing the 17A.
Just how far do you wish to go in restricting the right of people to vote and elect their leaders anyway?
White male property owners in good fiscal standing only??

Did you want to outlaw all Democrats from holding elected office, too?
Click to expand...

Ironically, some people forget that some of the founding fathers were in favor of directly electing senators
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
See? There it is again. You can't even stick to the topic of democratic elections.
The founders created a mixed government republic, the leadership of which is democratically elected.
I know this rubs you guys the wrong way but at least for now, that two hundred forty-two year tradition continues.
Click to expand...


hahahaha, the president is not elected by a democratic vote ,its by the electoral college

the senate as appointed by state legislatures up until 1913, which is not democratic.

the house as elected by people who owned land and paid taxes, until the civil war

mixed government is not a democratic form of government
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Ironically, some people forget that some of the founding fathers were in favor of directly electing senators
Click to expand...

oh some were, but it was not to be, the founders went with mixed government

the founders did not want a democratic form of government, because it has many factious combinations, which make government unstable
 
TurtleDude said:
1) yes I support repealing the 17th amendment, 2) the 16th amendment and 3) most of the FDR expansions of the commerce clause
Click to expand...

Oh Hell, why stop at 16, just say that you're a Tenther.
By the way, a large number of Tenthers ALSO believe that the Constitution STOPS AT the Tenth Amendment, too.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh Hell, why stop at 16, just say that you're a Tenther.
By the way, a large number of Tenthers ALSO believe that the Constitution STOPS AT the Tenth Amendment, too.
Click to expand...

I don't. however, I despise FDR's dishonest actions
 
Master PO said:
hahahaha, the president is not elected by a democratic vote ,its by the electoral college

the senate as appointed by state legislatures up until 1913, which is not democratic.

the house as elected by people who owned land and paid taxes, until the civil war

mixed government is not a democratic form of government
Click to expand...

You forgot that it's not 1913, it's not 1865 and you forgot local, city, state and congressional elections.
No EC there, is there?
Like TD, why not just say that you're a Tenther?

And in any case, both of you should be honest and really just admit that you want one-party rule anyway because were it possible to outlaw Democrats holding public office, you'd signal support for that, too.

Just be honest, you guys...you love authoritarian totalitarianism.
 
Master PO said:
hahahaha, the president is not elected by a democratic vote ,its by the electoral college

the senate as appointed by state legislatures up until 1913, which is not democratic.

the house as elected by people who owned land and paid taxes, until the civil war

mixed government is not a democratic form of government
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
1) yes I support repealing the 17th amendment, 2) the 16th amendment and 3) most of the FDR expansions of the commerce clause
Click to expand...

And by the way, since both of you are also in favor of "strict originalism", there's also no need for the SCOTUS at all!
There's something like twelve thousand words in the Constitution, thus a simple AI software program and the clerical equivalent of a staff of trained monkeys could crank out judicial interpretations of SCOTUS cases all day long!

Come to think of it, maybe you should just say that we need to go back to the Articles of Confederation, where each state was its own sovereign country with one common army...well...sort of :lamo
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You forgot that it's not 1913, it's not 1865 and you forgot local, city, state and congressional elections.
No EC there, is there?
Like TD, why not just say that you're a Tenther?

And in any case, both of you should be honest and really just admit that you want one-party rule anyway because were it possible to outlaw Democrats holding public office, you'd signal support for that, too.

Just be honest, you guys...you love authoritarian totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

well i made the point of what as created.

1 party rule would not be a good thing, no party rule would be the best
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
And by the way, since both of you are also in favor of "strict originalism", there's also no need for the SCOTUS at all!
There's something like twelve thousand words in the Constitution, thus a simple AI software program and the clerical equivalent of a staff of trained monkeys could crank out judicial interpretations of SCOTUS cases all day long!

Come to think of it, maybe you should just say that we need to go back to the Articles of Confederation, where each state was its own sovereign country with one common army...well...sort of :lamo
Click to expand...

the AOC didn't work, but in creating the constitution states were still sovereign and independent.
 
Master PO said:
well i made the point of what as created.

1 party rule would not be a good thing, no party rule would be the best
Click to expand...

"No party rule"....flutter flutter, imagine no parties, no rules, no government, no morals....

The only thing that separates you from the Black Bloque vandals is that you like your shop windows in one piece, and you prefer to wear a suit and tie. Anarchy is not, and never has been, a valid system.
It's the stuff of pipe smokers who can't handle not getting their own way all the time.
 
Tennyson said:
If a government system is anti-democratic, it is probably an unfair democracy by its nature.
Click to expand...

Pray tell, what is "anti-democratic"?

Something you decide yourself depending upon what is said and by whom?

Seems so ...
 
Master PO said:
hahahaha, the president is not elected by a democratic vote ,its by the electoral college

the senate as appointed by state legislatures up until 1913, which is not democratic.

the house as elected by people who owned land and paid taxes, until the civil war

mixed government is not a democratic form of government
Click to expand...

Nope, the senate was obtained by free elections as of 1866. From here, The United States Senate:
Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were elected in each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections created by the Founders. The law helped but did not entirely solve the problem, and deadlocks in some legislatures continued to cause long vacancies in some Senate seats.
Click to expand...

It was the first time that a change was made in the manner of voting in the US. And we need another change badly. That of the Electoral College that was "invented" simply at a time when getting the vote-tabulation to DC in order for the winner to be accepted by Congress.

We no longer need the state-based Electoral College for the election of a President of the Nation.

And about the right-to-vote:
15th Amendment (1870): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Click to expand...

Refer to qualified historical references, because it seems you've dreamed up definitions to suit your own purposes. They are pathetically wrong, wrong, wrong ...
 
Isn't this like the 78th thread on this topic, all with the same rationale, which is that the EC is bad because it keeps Democrats from winning every election? Please give it a rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom