PDA

View Full Version : Why We Are A Republic and Not A Democracy or Why Electoral College is Awesome!



Shady Slim
01-19-2018, 07:41 PM
The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.


The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.


Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation.


My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College? More at the link I have provided.





http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/17/republic-not-democracy/

resister
01-19-2018, 07:49 PM
It's the victory of President Donald John Trump. If Hillary had cheated her way into winning, we would of never heard a peep about the EC.

Kacper
01-19-2018, 09:49 PM
The Constitution was a compromise. They went to great lengths to get something agreed upon after the Articles of Confederation were failing miserable. The US Constitution is an act of political desperation more so than an Act of Enlightenment.

HawkTheSlayer
01-19-2018, 10:10 PM
Unfortunately, today, more so than ever, the majority of people are indeed not informed enough to run a washing machine let alone make the right choices in government.

Dr. Who
01-19-2018, 10:32 PM
The Constitution was a compromise. They went to great lengths to get something agreed upon after the Articles of Confederation were failing miserable. The US Constitution is an act of political desperation more so than an Act of Enlightenment.
That is why it is internally inconsistent. The fact is that the US has never been of a single mind. Constitutionalists like to suggest that the founding fathers spoke in one voice but the truth is that was never true. There was a minority of what we would currently term as libertarians and a majority of statists with SCOTUS left to sort out the ambiguities.

Kacper
01-19-2018, 10:39 PM
That is why it is internally inconsistent. The fact is that the US has never been of a single mind. Constitutionalists like to suggest that the founding fathers spoke in one voice but the truth is that was never true. There was a minority of what we would currently term as libertarians and a majority of statists with SCOTUS left to sort out the ambiguities.

I always chuckle when I hear people talk about Jefferson's wisdom and the Bill of Rights. It is a cut, paste, and condense from George Mason/Virginia. If you did what TJ did there on a college paper today, you would be instantly flagged for plagiarism, yet Jefferson is a "genius"

Peter1469
01-19-2018, 10:43 PM
The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.


The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.


Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation.


My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College? More at the link I have provided.





http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/17/republic-not-democracy/
It is contempt.

Shady Slim
01-20-2018, 06:45 AM
It's the victory of President Donald John Trump. If Hillary had cheated her way into winning, we would of never heard a peep about the EC.

So so true.



May I add that Hillar-i-ous had cheated her way to winning but she was so full of contempt that the people saw this.

Hillar-i-ous couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a handful of hundred dollar bills. She is that crooked.



edit- I can not believe that the word w-h-o-r-e- is banned from conversation here. More evil from the crooked left.

Shady Slim
01-20-2018, 06:51 AM
I always chuckle when I hear people talk about Jefferson's wisdom and the Bill of Rights. It is a cut, paste, and condense from George Mason/Virginia. If you did what TJ did there on a college paper today, you would be instantly flagged for plagiarism, yet Jefferson is a "genius"

You and Dr Who deserve each other.

Chris
01-20-2018, 10:14 AM
The Constitution was a compromise. They went to great lengths to get something agreed upon after the Articles of Confederation were failing miserable. The US Constitution is an act of political desperation more so than an Act of Enlightenment.


That is why it is internally inconsistent. The fact is that the US has never been of a single mind. Constitutionalists like to suggest that the founding fathers spoke in one voice but the truth is that was never true. There was a minority of what we would currently term as libertarians and a majority of statists with SCOTUS left to sort out the ambiguities.


I always chuckle when I hear people talk about Jefferson's wisdom and the Bill of Rights. It is a cut, paste, and condense from George Mason/Virginia. If you did what TJ did there on a college paper today, you would be instantly flagged for plagiarism, yet Jefferson is a "genius"



I always chuckle when those who constantly demand compromise recorgnize its failure.

BTW, the Articles of Confederation implemented what the revolution was about and were doing fine except for counterrevolutionaries who wanted a stringer centralized government.

Chris
01-20-2018, 10:20 AM
We're a republic for two reasons. One, at the time republicanism, based on Roman republicanism, was a popular alternative criticism of monarchy at the time. Even the aristocracy at the time spoke favorably of republicanism little realizing how they undermined their own positions.

Two, people like Madison defined democracy as majoritarian rule in order to argue a strawman. The alternative is bottom-up democracy, government starting at the lowest local level, and building up from that, like had been implemented in the Articles of Confederation. The Greeks had practiced it. Today it's being experimented with in Rojava.

rcfieldz
01-20-2018, 10:39 AM
Funny how the founding fathers named America, North America. And the countries south of the border, South America. Yet we have nothing to do with them. They get no votes here and we try as we might to rule over them. It's a wonder they havn't gone to war with us.

Captdon
01-20-2018, 12:06 PM
I always chuckle when those who constantly demand compromise recorgnize its failure.

BTW, the Articles of Confederation implemented what the revolution was about and were doing fine except for counterrevolutionaries who wanted a stringer centralized government.

The Articles of Confederation were a total failure and you know it. It was a loose group of thirteen states each doing what it wanted. That's not a nation in any terms. They had treaties amongst themselves and tariff between them and lacked the ability to even defend the country.

The Brtitish didn't lose; they gave up. They didn't think this land was worth it. Other nations might not have done that. We couldn't have remained free under that form of government.

I'll give you that the Convention went way beyond their brief but the states accepted it.

Yea, Jefferson was over-rated. He was a dreamer with no political opinions except to be President. He was Nixon ahead of his time.

Captdon
01-20-2018, 12:10 PM
Funny how the founding fathers named America, North America. And the countries south of the border, South America. Yet we have nothing to do with them. They get no votes here and we try as we might to rule over them. It's a wonder they havn't gone to war with us.

They didn't actually name us anything. They said, "These United States of America." It stuck. i doubt anyone even cared.

Chris
01-20-2018, 12:10 PM
The Articles of Confederation were a total failure and you know it. It was a loose group of thirteen states each doing what it wanted. That's not a nation in any terms. They had treaties amongst themselves and tariff between them and lacked the ability to even defend the country.

The Brtitish didn't lose; they gave up. They didn't think this land was worth it. Other nations might not have done that. We couldn't have remained free under that form of government.

I;ll give you that the Convention went way beyond their brief but the states accepted it.


It was a loose group of thirteen states each doing what it wanted. That's not a nation in any terms. They had treaties amongst themselves and tariff between them and lacked the ability to even defend the country.

That's what they fought the Revolutionary War. They defended themselves quote well.

Indeed, the states ratified the Constitution, and it led t what we have now, an out-of-control, socially intrusive, over-spending central governmnt.

Cletus
01-20-2018, 12:21 PM
It is contempt.

It is both.

Kacper
01-20-2018, 12:32 PM
I always chuckle when those who constantly demand compromise recorgnize its failure.

BTW, the Articles of Confederation implemented what the revolution was about and were doing fine except for counterrevolutionaries who wanted a stringer centralized government.
The Articles were not doing "Fine"

Peter1469
01-20-2018, 12:37 PM
The Articles were not doing "Fine"


The Articles of Confederation were a failure.

Chris
01-20-2018, 12:39 PM
The Articles were not doing "Fine"


The Articles of Confederation were a failure.

Indeed, they were a failure for certain people who wanted a strong central government to protect their interests.

Shady Slim
01-20-2018, 12:42 PM
Funny how the founding fathers named America, North America. And the countries south of the border, South America. Yet we have nothing to do with them. They get no votes here and we try as we might to rule over them. It's a wonder they havn't gone to war with us.

whut?

Where does Meso-America fall in?

Kacper
01-20-2018, 12:44 PM
Indeed, they were a failure for certain people who wanted a strong central government to protect their interests.

Sine you are an anarchist, your interpretations of success and failures in politics are irrelevant to society.

Shady Slim
01-20-2018, 12:47 PM
The Articles of Confederation were a total failure and you know it. It was a loose group of thirteen states each doing what it wanted. That's not a nation in any terms. They had treaties amongst themselves and tariff between them and lacked the ability to even defend the country.

The Brtitish didn't lose; they gave up. They didn't think this land was worth it. Other nations might not have done that. We couldn't have remained free under that form of government.

I'll give you that the Convention went way beyond their brief but the states accepted it.

Yea, Jefferson was over-rated. He was a dreamer with no political opinions except to be President. He was Nixon ahead of his time.

I am calling BS on you.


Here are five reasons the Brits tucked tail.



1. The Failure to Capture or Disband Washington’s Army
2. Parliament Opinion On The War Was Split
3. The Franco-American Alliance
4. Lack of Loyalist Support
5. Inability to Efficiently Supply the British Army

Dr. Who
01-20-2018, 12:53 PM
Funny how the founding fathers named America, North America. And the countries south of the border, South America. Yet we have nothing to do with them. They get no votes here and we try as we might to rule over them. It's a wonder they havn't gone to war with us.
Actually, America was initially the name given to South America long before the northern continent had been recognized. In 1538, geographer Gerard Mercator chose to name the entire north and south parts of America as one large “America” for the entire western hemisphere. As early as 1600, North America was so named on maps (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/united-states-map-1685.htm).

Many South Americans think it odd that people from the US call themselves 'Americans' because everyone from the northern and southern continents are 'Americans'. South Americans often refer to the people of the US as 'Estadounidense' which is like saying Unitedstatesian in English.

Chris
01-20-2018, 12:57 PM
Sine you are an anarchist, your interpretations of success and failures in politics are irrelevant to society.

And I could counter with since you're a statist...

I'm presenting the views of the anti-federalists, who were, in fact, the true federalists, original state rights advocates against a striong federal government. They were radicals, but not anarchists, for they did believe in the need for government, just at the local level of self-governance, rather than the central level of control.

Chris
01-20-2018, 01:16 PM
Opening paragraph of the Introduction to Sheldon Richman's America's Counter-Reveolition:

https://i.snag.gy/NcdFOB.jpg

Conservative and nationalist are used interchangeably in the book and must be understood in the context of the times when what was sought was the conservation of the concentration of power.

Captdon
01-20-2018, 03:33 PM
I am calling BS on you.


Here are five reasons the Brits tucked tail.



1. The Failure to Capture or Disband Washington’s Army
2. Parliament Opinion On The War Was Split
3. The Franco-American Alliance
4. Lack of Loyalist Support
5. Inability to Efficiently Supply the British Army

Nonsense. Washington's army was only a pest. The British controlled all the ports. We couldn't conduct trade. Parliament being split was over whether America was worth fighting. France saved us from certain defeat at the moment. They could not have continued on a long term basis against the Royal Navy. Loyalist support did nothing either for us or the British. The British had no supply problem. They had all the ports.

They decided they didn't want to fight a guerrilla war. France was their big problem. They needed their ground forces for France. The Brits were a naval power with only a so so army. America was no big deal at the time. We didn't have gold and the Brits didn't want land for the sake of land. They thought the whole place was just a bunch of trees and unrully people.

Tuck tail? It took years to get them completely out.Tthey did no tail tucking. If the Brits had come down from NY, Yorktown either would have destroyed Washington's army or he would have had to retreat. That would have broke his army.

Peter1469
01-20-2018, 04:43 PM
Indeed, they were a failure for certain people who wanted a strong central government to protect their interests.

And the government under the Articles were not sufficient.

Ethereal
01-20-2018, 04:48 PM
And the government under the Articles were not sufficient.
They were sufficient for the purpose of organizing a successful defense against the mightiest empire in the world at that time.

Ethereal
01-20-2018, 04:56 PM
The Articles were not doing "Fine"

I bet to differ.

In the first instance, a loose confederation of States successfully won their independence against the British empire, the mightiest empire in the world at that time. In other words, a confederation of States proved more than capable of defending themselves against a powerful foe, which is the probably the only legitimate function of large scale government. And while it's certainly true that the confederation had difficulty in raising revenues and accumulating debt, there is no real reason to view that as a problem. Indeed, one could view it is a major protection against tyranny and corruption. If you haven't already, I would recommend reading Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Economic_Interpretation_of_the_Constitution_of_ the_United_States). In it, he posits a theory that the US Constitution was the brainchild of an economic and financial elite looking to consolidate their power and protect their interests.

Ethereal
01-20-2018, 04:58 PM
Sine you are an anarchist, your interpretations of success and failures in politics are irrelevant to society.
I fail to see how your conclusion follows from your premise. One can be an anarchist and still make valid political observations.

Chris
01-20-2018, 05:48 PM
And the government under the Articles were not sufficient.

Sufficent for what, taxing the people, regulating commerce, standing an army, generall centralizing a federal government? Look where that got us.

Peter1469
01-20-2018, 08:25 PM
They were sufficient for the purpose of organizing a successful defense against the mightiest empire in the world at that time.

God saved the revolution.

Also, Britain was distracted in Europe.