#foxnewsfacts

[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!