#foxnewsfacts

[El Kabong]

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

No problem.

Our Government is a Constitutional Republic that votes- which is a democratic thing , not a Republican thing (to vote).

Ok, Got it!

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.

[SlimTrae]

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).

[El Kabong]

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

[SlimTrae]

Amendments were made to the Constitution to limit the government.

I agree. I was pointing out that (eras) of America differ in why something is being amended. Obviously if those who started it-wanted women to vote for example- then they would've made voting inclusive, not exlusive. Amendments IMO are the result of a new generation disagreeing with the old- I'm not looking at the document called Constitution as much as those who issued it.

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.
Point noted, I agree totally. or totally agree?

It used to be that people who didn't own property didn't vote and that changed,
& property once upon a time included people-so it was the constitution that promoted right to (property) today we have whites whom have looked beyond the scope of religion & government into spirituality- thank goodness.
lots of things change. Being partisan, however, has not.- I disagree. Partisan is based on those who favor an idea or philosophy versus spirituality. A person is partisan from my POV in the way a person is religous (baptist, lutheran) or partisan (conservatism, liberalism, socialism, communism) see you cant put me and a many of people in that bracket because our idea of spirituality checks us. Makes attempt to walk morally upright. Partisanship if correct didnt exist until Thomas Jefferson , followed by Andrew Jacskon claimed to be Democratic Republicans. Republican Party was decades away from creation. So people then weren't partisan, they were rich or poor!

Executive orders are not without a check and balance system,
I disagree here also case in point:
Executive Order 13303 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -granting immunity to the oil industry & oh- the private contractors to whom some call: mercanaries.
When President Bush signed this- to which U & I today can revisit it and its effects - how so, would you say there was a check or balance in this order?
Or the executive Order Kennedy tried to give 1110 to eliminate our burden from private banks- he was killed two weeks later... Thats how potent that order is- he had to be killed for that- just like Lincoln who was shot right after he told the powers that be to kiss his ass on % for paying for the south's debt.

the Supreme Court is one of those and the Legislative Branch (The House & Senate) also can check and balance the powers of the President.
In theory you are correct- but on a case by case basis? I dunno.

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.
We agree.

As for Democratic system of government (or a DIRECT Democracy) vs a Constitutional Republic,
So no such thing as Constitutional Democracy?: (jokin)
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.

I just noted that before with Master- you stated Republic, then with me it is now a Constitutional Republic, but its cool, just pointing it out.

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.
Agreed.
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.
You mean:A constitutional Republic that does Democratic things like vote to put people in place to make such amendments? ( I'm givin U the bizness here!!)

So maybe it's a subtle difference but there IS a difference

Democracy=gang mob
Republic= constitutional, soverignty, dignity, morals & values, ok bud!

[walrus]

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.

[El Kabong]

[Xwetie]

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.

[SlimTrae]

That dude sounds biased. Sorry. It was a Democracy that gave us rights where once Asians were excluded via the Chinese exclusion Act, It took a Democracy (to elect) people who weren't biased or bigoted or racist to bring about equality for the Asians exluded, Africans enslaved and women denied of rights to vote.

What that guy said- sounded good-- but it was far from the truth of how this nation came to be- which was through the Articles of Confederation- later downed by Federalists who promoted Constitution and fought against by the Anti_federalists like Patrick Henry who said give me liberty or give me death- in RESPONSE to the constitution

[SlimTrae]

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 agree- to a degree. Case in point the two I just mentioned. One has not been checked (the oil industry granted immunity & the other died because the do got assassinated.)

[SlimTrae]

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 agree- to a degree. Case in point the two I just mentioned. One has not been checked (the oil industry granted immunity & the other died because the do got assassinated.)

Syntax correction:
I meant to type (the DUDE) got assassinated , not {do}
AOL Search
Above link is the Exec-Order I mentioned which (IMO) has no checks or balancing by way of our (elected) officials as in Senators & House of Representatives.

We do not elect( as Kabong states a Democratic thing). Once again: We have no Democratic process for those nominated to the Supreme Court- they are appointed by a President for their ideas of liberal justices or Conservative justices. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

To me; I fail to understand how any check or balance can impact any Executive Order. They -from my understanding are used when:
A. A President feels both Senate & Congress is preventing or fucking up their agenda- so by executive order they put something into place.

B. A President feels that in case the Senate or Congress may try to prevent or attempt to fuck up their agenda- they will issue their idea by way of Executive order.

Example from Executive Order 13303:
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that
the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development
Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products..

Section 1- The Prez hereby ordered that under no conditions or circumstances will there be
any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other
judicial process
This executive order prohibited, and be deemed null and void.

Damn! So does that mean America's president stated not even America can ask for tax dollars we spent on that nation to come by way of petrolium or garnishing-like someone can garnish you or me if we fall delinquent?

This was for any foreign country or a national interest.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014...2014-01523.pdf
Or President Obamas Executive Order 13656—Establishment of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It appears the only way to check an Exec Order- is with another order- which can amend a previous one: case in point: this one is an Amendment to Executive Order 12163-

So feel free to break some science down and let me know how/when you have seen an Exec order checked and balanced. As I am NOT saying outright it isnt true- rather I am stating I have no knowledge of it, but wouldnt mind learning how it can be true.