Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
idk, I actually agree with him here. Look at California going broke because its voters passed a proposition and now they can't raise property taxes. And look at California making gay marriage illegal because of a proposition. In both cases, democracy led to bad policy.
This is one of the least psycho things he has said.
If you're talking to me, Glennie, Palin, Limbaugh and so forth are just symptoms of the huge problem TnHilltopper was talking about above: that the target citizenry are too dumbed down to think for themselves (if I got you right Tn). They have no tools to help themselves. So they turn to whatever chattering self-serving device hits the right emotional knee-jerk buttons. It's like the 1920s. As for putting too much faith in this manifestation, there are millions of them and they do a lot of damage.
If you're not talking to me, never mind then.
Talk about being dumbed down,you only took the part that you liked from what Tn said.He made referencess to both sides of the aisle and being a blind partisan you only latched onto to the negative that he said about the right.
So do not think you are any better like them you only see and hear what you want to see and hear.
"Democracy" and "Republic" are not contrary terms. We currently have a democracy in the form of an elected democratic republic. we certainly don't have a direct democracy of ballot measures for everything, but that's only one form of democracy.
[Hair splitting flag on]
The democratic form and the republican form are mutually exclusive.
It's a common mistake to assume "republic" = "republican form".
REPUBLIC - A commonwealth; That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independent of its form of government.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 1302
A republic is not synonymous with a republican form of government. The People's Republic of China is a republic but not a republican form.
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432
In the republican form, the people (individually) are the sovereigns.
In the democratic form, the citizens (collectively) are the sovereigns.
All Americans have the potential to be sovereigns, at age of majority. But they also can surrender that in exchange for participation in the democracy, as a citizen.
By the way, the president is technically the highest ranking SERVANT to the sovereign people. He is not their leader, but the executive charged with applying the laws enacted by Congress to secure their rights.
(I omit the governing of those who consented part)
The founders made a offer to Washington to be king,so I have a question.
Do you think by doing so their intention's might have been to have a mixed gvt consisting of monarchy,Parliamentary and democracy?
If the constitution was tweeked for this type of gvt do you think we would be better off today? Such as freedom,state rights etc etc?
The founders made a offer to Washington to be king,so I have a question.
Do you think by doing so their intention's might have been to have a mixed gvt consisting of monarchy,Parliamentary and democracy?
Since the former colonists were not enthusiastic about the abuses of a Parliamentary democracy, I do not believe that they had any intention of copying the institutions of England.
James Madison clearly expressed his ideas for an ideal government - a republican form with explicit enumerated powers (not general powers) and restrained by checks and balances.
The founders made a offer to Washington to be king,so I have a question.
Do you think by doing so their intention's might have been to have a mixed gvt consisting of monarchy,Parliamentary and democracy?
If the constitution was tweeked for this type of gvt do you think we would be better off today? Such as freedom,state rights etc etc?
If I understand the law as written, the vast majority of it does not apply to the sovereign Americans... only the subject citizens.
To illustrate:
14th amendment imposes citizenship upon persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884
How did "all Americans" become citizens, at birth, of a foreign corporation? Wouldn't that make civic duties into involuntary servitude?
What?
You weren't informed that the United States = Congress, while the United States of America refers to the States united?
Articles of Confederation (1777)
Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
(Are you starting to get the picture?)
Quick reference to "sovereignty"
SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.
SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
[14th Amendment, Section 1.]
Did that foreign corporation really pass any laws that obligated the sovereign American people?
Nope.
Let's see what the courts define as the sovereign:
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
So far, I like this "republican form of government"...
Well I think it is a problem in general from both sides of the electorate, but in the case of the freeping right, there is a stronger tendency towards being belief driven and authoritarianism.
I shy away from people of "faith" because by its very nature, faith is unexamined belief and that to me is a concept I just can't get my mind around. While this probably more pertains to the right, it also occurs among the left as evidenced by those liberals who remain silent on Obama's less than liberal decisions.
I was wondering why Glenn Beck and his followers are so adamantly against democracy, even on small local issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
