A Constitutional Amendment That Needs Amending

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu
The Founding Fathers gave us a representative republic,

Not quite...

They gave us a Constitutional Republic. The difference being the 'dumbocracy' part is dramatically restricted and limited by said Constitution.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Are you trying to tell me that the US doesn't utilize a representational republic?

Is this really the petty little hill you want to die on?

A distinct set of definitions of the term "republic" evolved in the United States, where the term is often equated with "representative democracy." This narrower understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10.

en.wikipedia.org...

The US can be called a federal presidential constitutional republic or a constitutional federal representative democracy.

www.dictionary.com...

The United States is a democratic republic, or a representational democracy, depending on if one takes a state-upward or a federal-downward view of things.

www.thisnation.com...

The United States, like most modern nations, is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy. Instead, it is a hybrid democratic republic.

www.thoughtco.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Oh bother...

Did you see my mention of 'small-d' democracy above? That's a concession to small scale majority voting blocks within the states while keeping the federal system as a whole on a Republic level.

I said that the US is not a Democracy, capital-d. Someone who tries to nitpick on 'narrower understandings of terms' should be able to pick up on that.

And our President and constitutional amendments.

Presidents are not elected by majority vote of the population, no matter how many times people bring up the Popular Vote.

Article 5 covers the Amendment procedure and it is not a simple majority vote of the general population. It's a multiple step process.

My so called republics? LOL
Go tell those 159 countries that call themself republics all about how they're not real republics.

Are you familiar with "moving the goalpost'? Because shifting from 4 non-republic nations that YOU mentioned and YOU called Republics (China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia) to 159 countries is a move that might have just thrown your back out.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Are you trying to tell me that the US doesn't utilize a representational republic?

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm telling you that the term 'representative republic' can mean any number of things and doesn't describe what we have even remotely precisely enough.

Is this really the petty little hill you want to die on?

It is only petty to those whose goal is to obfuscate the true nature of our great experiment.

The fact is, our Constitution is what sets us apart. Period. I know people like you don't like it, but it is what it is. Deal with it.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Are you familiar with "moving the goalpost'?

That would be exactly what you have been doing here.

You said democracies always self destructs and fail shortly after they being. I asked you what pre-American demonocracies have failed shortly after they were formed. You never answered the question.

You went on about how America is a "REPUBLIC!"

Yeah, yeah, China, Cuba and Russia are REPBULICS! too.

Then you went on a rant about how they are not real republics, because what? Our little "d" democracy?

Hey, at least you admit that the USA is a little "d".

Presidents are not elected by majority vote of the population, no matter how many times people bring up the Popular Vote.

In 48 states, all electoral votes got the popular vote winner.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The difference being the 'dumbocracy' part is dramatically restricted and limited by said Constitution.

You hate democracy, I get it.
We have 17th Amendment. Deal with it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

You hate democracy

As does any sane, rational human being.

We have 17th Amendment. Deal with it.

We also have Article V - not an Amendment, part of the native/original Constitution - that specifically forbids any Amendment that would deprive any State of its Right to equal suffrage (representation)...

Which is precisely what the 17th Amendment does.

Deal with it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
That would be exactly what you have been doing here.

What I have been doing is try to have a conversation with someone who jumps all over the board because they can't handle a straight conversation.

You said democracies always self destructs and fail shortly after they being. I asked you what pre-American demonocracies have failed shortly after they were formed. You never answered the question.

I said the Founders were opposed to direct democracies. Stop jumping around.

You went on about how America is a "REPUBLIC!"

Yeah, yeah, China, Cuba and Russia are REPBULICS! too.

(facepalm)

Since you can't seem take a hint, I'll tell you directly: No. They are not republics. They may like to use the word 'republic' but are lying, but some people continue to believe them. I know it's a shock, but the bad guys don't just say "HEY I'M A BAD GUY." In other news, the Earth is not flat even though some people say it is, and 'free universal healthcare' is neither free or universal.

Then you went on a rant about how they are not real republics, because what? Our little "d" democracy?

No, they are not republics because their governmental power is not retained by the citizens and they do not elect representatives in free and fair elections. Nor is their executor/leader/prime minister elected in free and fair elections.

Hey, at least you admit that the USA is a little "d".

I never said we didn't have majority voting, for states internally. I said the USA is not a Democracy. Capital D. And you continue to jump around.

In 48 states, all electoral votes got the popular vote winner.

Yes. Internally decided by the States. More jumping.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

What I have been doing is try to have a conversation with someone who jumps all over the board because they can't handle a straight conversation.

No you're not.

I asked you a simple question. What pre-American democracies failed shortly after they started, like YOU asserted. You can't or won't answer the question.

This thread is about the OP, you and others, who want to repeal the right and the ability of We the People to vote for congressional representatives. So, why you endorse that, and what past democratic failures you are basing that decision on would be relevant for a straight conversation.

No. They are not republics. They may like to use the word 'republic' but are lying, but some people continue to believe them.

169 countries call themselves republics today.

I know it's a shock, but the bad guys don't just say "HEY I'M A BAD GUY." In other news, the Earth is not flat even though some people say it is, and 'free universal healthcare' is neither free or universal.

Is that what it all boils down to, good guys and bad guys? Real republics are run by the good guys, the other, fake ones are run by bad guys?

I never said we didn't have majority voting, for states internally. I said the USA is not a Democracy. Capital D. And you continue to jump around.

I never said it was. I said that America is a representative republic. I asserted that the American government utilized democracy as a vehicle for that representation.

I am also opposed to repealing the 17th Amendment or any move to limit our voting rights as they are today.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I asked you a simple question. What pre-American democracies failed shortly after they started, like YOU asserted. You can't or won't answer the question.

I posted you the Founder's words. Take it up with them.

This thread is about the OP, you and others, who want to repeal the right and the ability of We the People to vote for congressional representatives. So, why you endorse that,

I endorse the State governments having more input into federal affairs. I have said that from the start.

and what past democratic failures you are basing that decision on would be relevant for a straight conversation.

See the Federalist papers and the Founder's reasons.

169 countries call themselves republics today.

Good for them. They are not in scope. YOU referenced 4 non-republics SPECIFICALLY to forward your argument about republics. Stay on target. Stop jumping around.

Is that what it all boils down to, good guys and bad guys? Real republics are run by the good guys, the other, fake ones are run by bad guys?

Do you seriously think that the China, North Korea, Cuba and Russia governments fit the criteria of 'good guys'?

I am also opposed to repealing the 17th Amendment or any move to limit our voting rights as they are today.

Good for you. We disagree about the 17th Amendment. I think it needs to be repealed.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I posted you the Founder's words. Take it up with them.

This is what you posted.

They were students of history and had observed that nations which dabbled in direct democracy never lasted very long afterwards.

So now we all understand that you, yourself, are not a student of history Without any evidence, you can't defend your assertion, you can only parrot what someone else said, because it supports your bias against citizen voting.

YOU referenced 4 non-republics SPECIFICALLY to forward your argument about republics.

Here on "Earth One", the rest of the planet agree that they're "republics". The USA being a "republic" is NOT what separates it from other contemporary governments. It's not even that the USA has a constitution that separates the USA from other nations. It's the contents of the US Constitution and the rights it protects that sets the USA apart from other "republics".

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
So now we all understand that you, yourself, are not a student of history Without any evidence, you can't defend your assertion, you can only parrot what someone else said, because it supports your bias against citizen voting.

You speak for no one but yourself, sookie. All you can do is distort, divert and attempt to derail.

Not once have I said citizens should not have the right to vote.

Here on "Earth One", the rest of the planet agree that they're "republics".

No, at best the planet acknowledges that some of those countries have the word 'republic' in their name. Anyone with even a moderate understanding of political structures would understand those 4 countries YOU mentioned are not republics.

The USA being a "republic" is NOT what separates it from other contemporary governments. It's not even that the USA has a constitution that separates the USA from other nations. It's the contents of the US Constitution and the rights it protects that sets the USA apart from other "republics".

Like I said, all you can do is distort, divert and attempt to derail.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

You made an assertion,

They were students of history and had observed that nations which dabbled in direct democracy never lasted very long afterwards.

But you can name a single nation that fell shortly after it established a democratic republic.

No, at best the planet acknowledges that some of those countries have the word 'republic' in their name

The People's Republic of China is a socialist republic ruled by a single party, the Communist Party of China.

www.thoughtco.com...

The Republic of Cuba has been, since the adoption of its constitution in 1976 a socialist republic, governed by the National Assembly People’s Power, a legislative body that selects a Council of State as the nation’s executive branch. The President of the Council of State is the head of state and head of government of Cuba.c

www.encyclopedia.com...

Russia’s form of government is technically a semi-presidential republic, with a president, prime minister, three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial), and a legislature.

www.metro.us...


Get over yourself.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

You hate democracy

As does any sane, rational human being.

We have 17th Amendment. Deal with it.

We also have Article V - not an Amendment, part of the native/original Constitution - that specifically forbids any Amendment that would deprive any State of its Right to equal suffrage (representation)...

Which is precisely what the 17th Amendment does.

Deal with it.

No witty retort sookie?

a reply to: LittleJake

The result of that change means that a states representative can be from entirely another state altogether. For example some one from Iowa can be a state representative in Nebraska for their entire term. Such a thing is strategically used politically to place a political party representative to try to swing the vote in their favor because the representatives name is well known in politics... The so called political party endorsements and it's not just them but also recruiting celebrities as some sort of special agent... Like Richard Nixon did with Elvis Presley.

Registering as Independent and voting for who would do the best job for local state and fed would kill all of that nonsense... Since neither of the two majority parties would know who to pander too.