RE: The American Constitution ?

RE: The American Constitution ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 10:30:54 AM)
And this is why intelligent people never vote "Democrat" or "Republican."

Owner59 -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 10:43:53 AM)
Correct? Well,it`s complicated.[;)]

DomKen -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 11:29:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Personally, I found the clip very informative. I've been asking (including my daughters teachers g) what the real differences are between a democracy and a republic...and even they can only give vague answers. A republic is a form of government where power is delegated to a chosen group by a larger body. For instance US citizens elect Representatives, Senators and the President to exercize the power of the state. A Democracy is direct rule by the citizenry. The two best known examples are New England style town meeting governments and ancient greek city states. In the purest formof town meeting government all policy decisions are decided by popular vote of the residents of the town. There is no elected city council or mayor and what town service do exist are managed either by department heads or a ired city manager who serves at the pleasure of the citizens. Democracy has proven to be unworkable with large groups of citizens and the republic has come about as a workable substitute.

DomKen -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 11:37:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The articles of Confederation failed because only the states, not the people had power. Thus the founders created the Constitution to "form a more perfect union" and to correct the problems under the Articles. Actually the Articles of confederation failed because the central government was too weak to function. The Constitution was written to strengthen the union of the states. If you read the anti federalist's arguments you will see that even the most extreme had abandoned the idea of a very weak central government and the argument was truly one of degree not substance. In neither case was power for the people at issue. quote: The USSR was a republic in name only just as many dictatorships claimed to be The Peoples Democratic Republic of whatever. The USSR was a republic in the literal sense of the word. The people elected representatives for the local soviets which chose members to serve on the next higher soviet repeating the cycle until the Supreme Soviet chose the premier. That the electors were exclusively party members and various means were used to make sure only the politically heterodox achieved high office and that the law was ignored and subverted by those in power does not change the central fact that the USSR was actually a republic.

Politesub53 -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 3:57:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Yes Aneirin, the US and indeed the world was fortunate to have had the priviledge of men such as the founders of the USA. Their risk and sacrifice was great, their vision and intellect unmatched and their hope for greatness devine. I often wonder if they would be proud or disappointed by how we stand now. Opinions I would assume are aplenty. It isnt as if they were the first with the idea though. A fair but of the constitution is based on the Magna Carta, and your Bill of rights is based on that of the UK. Both of which were based on earlier theories. The initial ideals of the French Revolution were close to being a republic, as was The English Commonwealth under Cromwell. The fact both failed doesn`t detract from the ideal. One of your earlier posts was spot in, in as much as whichever type of Governence transpires, there is always someone who wants more. Lets not forget constitutional ideals only extended to white people. Not that that has been different anywhere else. For that reason alone, it wasnt a true Republic. The actual video was ammusing as he skipped over the sections which didnt fit his argument. Edited for spelling, or lack of, to be exact.

Coldwarrior57 -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 4:18:46 PM)
The best description I have heard for the meaning of a democracy , 3 wolfs and sheep voting on whats for dinner. We are a constitutional republic. great video thanks , adding that to my favorites.

DomKen -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 4:42:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Lets not forget constitutional ideals only extended to white people. Not that that has been different anywhere else. For that reason alone, it wasnt a true Republic. No republic has ever extended the franchise to every one living under that state's rule. That doesn't change all those many republics into false republics.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 8:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar OK guys tell me what it would be like if you wrote the constitution. It is not the same as when it was written. There are always changes being made to it. What would your changes be??? I'd like to see some way to prevent states from putting up artificial barriers to the creation of political parties, such as having a certain number of, or percentage of, citizens, sign petitions to get a minority party (Greens, Libertarians) on ballots. I'd like to see the 4th Amendment strengthened. I'd like to see the Electoral College eliminated. I'd like to see an Amendment creating a mechanism whereby political campaigns are publicly financed. I'd like to see the ERA passed. I'll have to think about it some more.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 10:07:29 PM)
You definition of "republic" seems to lead one away from the most critical aspect of what a republic is, and by doing so, reinforce you contention that the rule of law isn't a cornerstone of what a republic actually is. The reason that a small group of elected officials can govern and keep the interest of the people as the guiding principle - including minorities - is that there are laws which they must (should) follow. Therefore, a "republic" without the rule of law is actually either a oligarchy or a democracy. Which is pretty much what the video said. The Soviets were not republics, because there was no rule of law, regardless of what their legal documentation said. The interests of the party were paramount, and were higher than any "law". Therefore, no rule of law, and no republic. Firm

DomKen -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/5/2009 10:52:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You definition of "republic" seems to lead one away from the most critical aspect of what a republic is, and by doing so, reinforce you contention that the rule of law isn't a cornerstone of what a republic actually is. The reason that a small group of elected officials can govern and keep the interest of the people as the guiding principle - including minorities - is that there are laws which they must (should) follow. Therefore, a "republic" without the rule of law is actually either a oligarchy or a democracy. Which is pretty much what the video said. The Soviets were not republics, because there was no rule of law, regardless of what their legal documentation said. The interests of the party were paramount, and were higher than any "law". Therefore, no rule of law, and no republic. Firm No. A republic is and always has been simply a government where a larger group of citizens or equivalent chose a smaller group(s) to do the governing. An oligarchy is a situation where a small group wields power directly over a powerless majority. The British system when the house of lords dominated parliament was an oligarchy. It had the rule of law but not a republican government. The USSR was definitely a republic, it had many elected bodies which governed at many different levels, but did not have rule of law. No government system is automatically for or against the rule of law. Hammurabai was an absolute monarch with the unquestioned power of life and death over his subjects but he codified and by all accounts followed the first known legal system and in a literal sense invented the very concept of rule of law.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 1:29:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Therefore, a "republic" without the rule of law is actually either a oligarchy or a democracy. The USSR was definitely a republic, it had many elected bodies which governed at many different levels, but did not have rule of law. No rule of law. No republic. The USSR was therefore not a republic. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 1:41:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen An oligarchy is a situation where a small group wields power directly over a powerless majority. The British system when the house of lords dominated parliament was an oligarchy. It had the rule of law but not a republican government. The monarchy was not elected. The House of Lords was not elected. The House of Commons was elected. Mixed system. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No government system is automatically for or against the rule of law. Hammurabai was an absolute monarch with the unquestioned power of life and death over his subjects but he codified and by all accounts followed the first known legal system and in a literal sense invented the very concept of rule of law. An absolute monarch choosing to honor a set of rules he laid down does not subtract from his power and ability to not follow any such rules. Generally, his rules are for the order of his kingdom. He may be a benevolent monarchy, but still a monarch. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. A republic is and always has been simply a government where a larger group of citizens or equivalent chose a smaller group(s) to do the governing. You seem not to understand that a republic requires two things, not one: 1. Election of political leaders who: 2. Must have a set of enforced system of rules (law) which take into account the rights of the electorate. Firm

Politesub53 -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 3:17:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Lets not forget constitutional ideals only extended to white people. Not that that has been different anywhere else. For that reason alone, it wasnt a true Republic. No republic has ever extended the franchise to every one living under that state's rule. That doesn't change all those many republics into false republics. Surely the true ideal of a republic should be to include everybody in the process ?

Aneirin -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 4:54:40 AM)
So, all this confusion that exists to what is and what isn't a whatever, could it be that that suits those that run countries and seek to run countries ? Also, should these different political engines have a clear definition and therefore not stray from thedefinition or should they be open to modification ?

dcnovice -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 5:37:50 AM)
<fast reply> I'm really enjoying the idea of Louis XIV (l'etat, c'est moi) as a leftist!

DomKen -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 5:55:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You seem not to understand that a republic requires two things, not one: 1. Election of political leaders who: 2. Must have a set of enforced system of rules (law) which take into account the rights of the electorate. Firm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic Rule of law is very nice but not diagnostic of a republic.

corysub -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 6:54:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin So, all this confusion that exists to what is and what isn't a whatever, could it be that that suits those that run countries and seek to run countries ? Also, should these different political engines have a clear definition and therefore not stray from thedefinition or should they be open to modification ? The "Founders" saw that there would be a need for change in future times. The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 but it took four years of debate until the first ten amendments were adopted in December of 1791. I don't believe, however, that James Madison in his wildest imagination ever believe that the First Amendment would be interpreted with court rulings in favor of protecting the rights of flag-burning, hard-core rap and heavy-metal lyrics, tobacco advertising, and pornography, among so many other activites that make our society corse and catering to the most banal needs of the citizenry. On the other hand, too strict an interpretation and there would be no CM chat venue. Modify...but with some balance.,, is the challange. We can go through all the important "modifications" that significantly improved the American experience from the abolition of slavery to women suffrage and on and on. Actually, the only Amendment that I would violently protest these days would be the 18th. Sometimes people approve an amendment that just does defies common sense and the needs of the individual to just chill out.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 10:15:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You seem not to understand that a republic requires two things, not one: 1. Election of political leaders who: 2. Must have a set of enforced system of rules (law) which take into account the rights of the electorate. Firm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic Rule of law is very nice but not diagnostic of a republic. God, you are just too easy ... From your own source: 1. Enlightenment republicanism: (rule of law) In fact, the Enlightenment had set the standard for republics, as well as in many cases for monarchies, in the next century. The most important principles established by the close of the Enlightenment were the rule of law, the requirement that governments reflect the self-interest of the people that were subject to that law, that governments act in the national interest, in ways which are understandable to the public at large, and that there be some means of self-determination. [emphasis added] 2. Concepts of democracy: (Soviet "republics") Some of the hardline totalitarianism lived on in the East, even after the Iron Curtain fell.[citation needed] Sometimes the full name of such republics can be deceptive: having "people's" or "democratic" in the name of a country can, in some cases bear no relation with the concepts of democracy (neither "representative" nor "direct") that grew in the West. In fact, the phrases "People's Republic" and/or "Democratic Republic" were part of the official titles of many Marxist states during the Cold War, including East Germany, North Korea, Mongolia, and today's People's Republic of China. It also should be clear that many of these "Eastern" type of republics fall outside a definition of a republic that supposes control over who is in power by the people at large – unless it is accepted that the preference the people displays for their leader is in all cases authentic. [emphasis added] Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 10:19:47 AM)
Another interesting quote. Republicanism in the United States: It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. (Hence supermajorites were required for approval of treaties and constitutional amendments). In a government made up as a constitutional republic, the Rule of Law and clearly defined constitutional principles dictate the actual administration of government. Firm

DomKen -> RE: The American Constitution ? (2/6/2009 11:12:49 AM)
You're playing games with the bare definition of a republic. A republic is and always has been a government where some large group chooses some of its members to dothe actual governing. I'm not going to argue constitutional republic or enlightenment republicanism or any other modified republic. I will further note that all of your quotes are lifted from sections which are simply the opinions of the author as indicated by the various [citation needed] tags. You conveniently ignore the first sentence of the article which does succinctly describe a republic quote: A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch [1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.423828E-02