#foxnewsfacts

[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

[El Kabong]

Ok does the Constitution say "Democracy"? The Pledge of Allegiance? The Declaration of Independence?

Is it a coincidence? Or is there the possibility that there is a reason for that word not being used?

Look up the Founding Fathers views on Democracy vs a Republic, apparently they see a difference

[SlimTrae]

Ok does the Constitution say "Democracy"?

No, sir it doesn't.

The Pledge of Allegiance?
No, sir it doesn't

The Declaration of Independence?
No, sir it doesn't

Is it a coincidence?
IMO-No.

Or is there the possibility that there is a reason for that word not being used?

Yes- those who by way of mob rule (aka the Federalists) over ruled those who were against government having too much control (aka Anti-Federalists) and using words that sounded unified, but had actions that proved otherwise for nations that preceded American Federalization like France to Spain.


Look up the Founding Fathers views on Democracy vs a Republic, apparently they see a difference

Yes, thats why I didn't go generic and use (Founding Fathers) we call them that- did they call themselves that? So when we see (founding fathers) we have to be sure these aren't the words of revisionists. So, if they (founding fathers called themselves something else- what would it have been?)
I stated this 1. Federalists 2. AntiFederalists. As the Democatic Party wasnt created until Andrew Jackson's time. And the Republican Party here in Wisconsin was the result of the failed Whig Party headed by one Abe Lincoln.

Then I gave names like Madison to Hamilton aka Federalists.
And names like Patrick Henry- ANTI-Federalist I quote this dude: "Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government"

And what did Patrick Henry state about this Republic as it relates to the word: Democracy? He stated "It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely"

He goes on- who is he? One of our founding fathers I presume- or at least one who lived in the era of the so-called founding fathers state "our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished I conceive this new Government to be one of those dangers"

Henry speaking to his collegeagues:
For when power is given to this Government to suppress these, or, for any other purpose, the language it assumes is clear, express, and unequivocal; but when this Constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, Sir, a fatal ambiguity;-

"I mean, when it says that there shall not be more Representatives than one for every 30,000. Now, Sir, how easy is it to evade this privilege? Now, is it not clear that, from the first expression, the number might be reduced so much that some States should have no Representatives at all, were it not for the insertion of this last expression? "

I end with Patrick Henry- the man who said "give me liberty or give me death" stated this:

If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government:

Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce; they are out of the sight of the common people:

Republic from what U state IMO represents a noun (a thing)
Democracy fron what U state IMO represents a verb (action) that is why I failed to understand how you try to compare the two- one is descriptive of the other- A (Constitutional) Republic that (practices) a Democracy.

[El Kabong]

Alright.....why don't you Google it and research it for yourself? Don't want my word? Then look elsewhere for an answer.

[brocktonblockbust]

The creation of the IRS was perhaps the worst political thing ever in US history. We are not corporations. Originally it was illegal for the US govt to levy and kind of federal income tax on US citizens. They tweaked it, and now we are taxed as if we are corporate entities. We earn our money, it is OUR money, why should we turn over 25% of it to build missiles and stealth fighters? Because we all know that 90% of it HAS to be going to the military-industrial complex.

Yes some goes to libraries and fire departments and police stations and roads and bridges and tunnels---wait, no, thats bullshit, the US's infracstructure is freaking falling apart, bridges and sewers collapsing and caving in every damn day.

[SlimTrae]

Alright.....why don't you Google it and research it for yourself? Don't want my word? Then look elsewhere for an answer.

What do you mean (IT)?

All I did was point out the fact that Democracy isnt a bad word- to be used in context with a mob. that is a quote attributed to Jefferson to which has never been proven.

I answer your questions with answers. And as usual: you either answer my questions with other questions, or ignore them. So I will again do for you- just to show what I percieve as ass-out hypocrisy or hallow/shallowness of these words put into practice- let us visit:

A lynch mob is Democracy. Everyone voted but the man being lynched. A Republic rescues this man gives him a fair trial with a bona fide judge and witnesses for his defense.

This is what U are referring to, right? Right? so then:
When did a Republic rescue black men from being lynched? When Kabong?
When did a Republic rescue land being taken from the natives, when Kabong?
When did a Republic rescue children from working like damn grown ups 10 hours a day up till 1900s?
When did a Republic rescue black women from the jaws of the demon acting-slave rapists?
When did a Republic rescue the tens of thousands of Asians kicked out of America aka Chinese exclusion act? No room for them, but room for Polish, Irish, Italian. Oh, & now no room for Mexicans aka illegals.

Sure I'ved seen the quotes and already told U- That shit sounds good, but when was it practiced?

The key is to eliminate the names of these dudes and replace them with (Founding Fathers).

Are you referring to President Hanson elected unanimously by all thirteen states under the original constitution-immediately after the defeat of the British by American patriots? Even George"I cant win in battle" Washington voted for him. Is he apart of this founding father group you oft-repeat? Or has he been excluded?

Or President Washington & his band of bros the only ones U refer to as FF? Whom by way--- GWashington was elected with the participation of only ten states. prior to New York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina joining this union.

Your founding fathers U mention wanted abandonment of the original constitution because of the inability to collect taxes; under that assumption--- Conservatives todat say the first constitution was too weak- yet when pressed what made it weak- we can hear the crickets...{silence}

I have clearly stated that this mob of Washington & Madison & Hamilton had a challenge: Men who questioned that Democracy indeed was worth considering. Who questioned the way the constitution was being forced down the people's throat- those men today have been eliminated from your precious (founding fathers label as a result, or am I wrong?) Even the dude who started this nation and his sucessors have been blotted out from history's books.

I dont disagree with your premise that a Republic is what those cats wrote about and not Democracy-- I hear U G! U dont hear me though-

I disagreed that it was practiced by them- for all. These cats who didnt like Democracy, right? During the Washington's election was it not true that:

1. Only ten of the original thirteen states cast votes in the nation’s inaugural election. Having not yet ratified the Constitution, North Carolina and Rhode Island were both ineligible for participation in the process. New York was also absent from the process--And thats not Mob rule? R-U Kidding me? That is NOT mob rule? fuck those cats if they aint ready to vote. And the people didnt vote directly- they got elecorates (2) and those 2 muu'fuckas voted. And thats not Gang-bang-mob F'n rule?

See I heard U loud & clear- U like the words. But I question that those words are hallow and shallow aka Constitutional Republic And that Democracy at least gave women, and colored folk (called in that day) a chance.
Man a chance to vote out bigots, racist and other buster muh-fuckas.

[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.

[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.

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.

FDR did the internment of the Japanese by executive order. It was later ruled unconstitutional.

[SlimTrae]

[QUOTE=walrus;1316340]

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.

FDR did the internment of the Japanese by executive order. It was later ruled unconstitutional.

Had to check a bit b4 I replied- New to this one.
Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation Correct?
World War II, February 19, 1942, President F. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, granting the U.S. military the power to ban tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
(IF) I understand what happened: Fred Korematsu, refused to leave his home. When convicted, he appealed due to your take of (checks & balances) If I got it right-his case reached the Supreme Court.

A 6-3 majority on the Court upheld Korematsu's conviction. What I take of your defense- is that some cases we win some lose- @ least he was given a shot?

Justice Hugo Black stated " not all such restrictions are inherently unconstitutional."

In Korematsu's case, the Court accepted the U.S. military's argument that the loyalties of some Japanese Americans resided not with the United States but with their ancestral country, and that because separating "the disloyal from the loyal" was a logistical impossibility,

Then decades later he took it up again? Congress in 1983 declared that the decision had been "overruled in the court of history," and the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 contained a formal apology- if this is true (I dunno) then the checks & balances ruled against him technically, but in theory felt his pain. Good thing he lived long enough to see his case tried again. Meaning that there wasn't any politician who could check & balanced the act of an executive order- rather justices who are appointed by presidents whom we elect.

I have found that Korematsu's conviction was overturned on November 10, 1983-but it also says not explicitly. Not sure what that means.