I guess I'm posing more of a question than stating a fact. I thought we were (A) Republic that practices Democracy.
Yes. It's a democratic thing to vote for example and as citizens we all participate in that if we so choose, but our system of government is a Constitutional Republic.
Splitting hairs but it's important to distinguish between the two
It is a democratic action to vote ok? By voting you are practicing democracy.
HOWEVER
The Democratic system of government is 1 person, 1 vote, per issue. Meaning that 51% of the people RULE 49% of the people (or a plurality might be able to rule given a certain breakdown of the percentages). A pure Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, if 51% of the people said "Fuck The Constitution" then it would be so, if 51% of the people said "SlimTrae's car should be confiscated and used as a government taxi" it would be so.
In a Constitutional Republic, which we in the United States have elected representatives vote on most issues. These representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution as the rule and guide to governing their constituents. The Constitution protects land rights, minority rights (voting minorities and ethnic/religious/etc minorities), in hopes to keep the government of this nation from becoming oppressive. That said the more we stray from The Constitution the vulnerable we as citizens become to an oppressive government. We've not been perfect in the past and we won't be perfect in the future, but the closer we are to the founding document of this nation the better off we will all be.
but that's just my take.
Depending on timeframe. 1820's the constitution wasnt amended to what it became 1880's. So much of what you say- didnt come by standing fast with the constitution- but to challenge that it needed to be amended. Amendment 4,5,6 etc.
It is an everchanging document based on the culture of the people. As stated at one time the (mob rule) as you stated felt that there needed to be a 3/5th rule for those who were considered slaves.
Another time it wasnt amended to allow women to vote.
Also you accurately stated: In a Constitutional Republic, which we in the United States have elected representatives vote on most issues
Such as the issues relating to the Federal Coummunication Commisision , we don't vote. SO no mob rule there. Executive orders which should have been or at least could have been done away with after Lincoln, but it seems these orders are only welcomed by partisanship. Nothing Democratic about that.
But I admit I am not sure of how you've structured the last two paragraphs-
The Democratic system of government
In a Constitutional Republic,
1st paragraph I gather you are defining who votes
2nd paragraph I gather you are defining who is elected by way of those votes.
So I am not sure how to relate those two as you begin it with : HOWEVER. I am expecting a comparison to come, rather I see two different subjects that dont fit (however).
Ending example when you state: The Constitution protects land , rights...
See to me that depends on the era- generation as Henry Berry stated the Constitution should protect property- to which he argued that slaves were property- He was so effective at arguing it- that the constitution upheld his argument in the Senate.
Those who disagreed, were called evil. By title these evil doers seeking to do away with the constitution because they were for abolition.
Abolishing slavery which produced a great American product: a slave.
So the constitution or the Articles of Confederation. both documents that don't seem to prove or disprove that when one votes- regardless of the piece of paper that rules their thinking- is as you stated: A democratic thing. I just wanted to make sure it wasnt going to change to a Republican thing. Rather a Republic, that practices a Democracy (voting process 1 per person).
Last edited by SlimTrae; 04-07-2015 at 11:37 PM.
Amendments were made to the Constitution to limit the government. 4th Amendment ratified in 1791, 5th Amendment ratified 1791, 6th ratified 1791, and onwards with the rest which addressed issues that came up as we grew as a nation. It used to be that people who didn't own property didn't vote and that changed, lots of things change. Being partisan, however, has not.
Executive orders are not without a check and balance system, the Supreme Court is one of those and the Legislative Branch (The House & Senate) also can check and balance the powers of the President. The ability to do such greatly depends on who is in those positions of power and their duties are not to agree with their partisan friends, but to the Constitution and the constituents that elected them.
As for Democratic system of government (or a DIRECT Democracy) vs a Constitutional Republic, I was showing the differences between the two forms of government. A direct democracy is issue by issue, 1 person, 1 vote, majority rules with no guidelines as to how they can or can't act...so it would be mob rule, no strings attached. Not the case with a Constitutional Republic as the Constitution limits the abilities of the government.
So in a Direct Democracy if they had a vote on firearms and 51% of people said "Ban guns" then guns would be taken from the owners and destroyed.
vs
In our Constitutional Republic 51%, hell even more than that can think/feel about firearms all they want, but the 2nd Amendment keeps confiscation and a total ban of firearms from happening.
So maybe it's a subtle difference but there IS a difference
Executive orders do have checks and balances to a degree. They can be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional but the damage is usually long done by the time that happens.
I think its terrible that they move immigrants to Birmingham due to their speaking problem they have in Birmingham, Not even English people can understand them.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Bookmarks