A Constitutional Amendment That Needs Amending

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I used to call us a democratic republic, here on ATS, but i got smacked down so many times that now I refer to it as a representative republic. The term "democracy" isn't in the constitution, but representation is toughly covered. However, I accept that the USA a democratic republic just as easily.

So you keep telling the truth no matter what, deny ignorance, not capitulate to it.
Im not here to hand out bubble wrap, the truth is the truth, see below

a reply to: datguy

It is true...that the USA has a representative government, that utilized democracy as its vehicle of representation. It is also true that the USA has a democratic republic.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think it is confusion caused by the Governors of the states as well as the sheriffs who don't take as active a role as they are supposed to.
Many of them, capitulate to and are dependent on federal subsidies. These are the people who are democratically elected by the people as representatives for the people on the state level. The governors and the sheriffs were intended to have greater power in the states than the U.S. President or other democratically elected federal representatives.

Of coarse this assumes the system is not corrupted

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Seriously.

It's called "The People's Republic of China". Did you not know that? Is that news to you?

Is it news to you that the Chinese communist uniparty is lying about their government and country title?

That's like saying North Korea is a Democracy. Maybe you'd like to move there, for all that you want to live in one.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Lots of communist countries are republics.

Cuba is a Republic. Russia is a republic. And yes, North Korea is al republic too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Lots of communist countries are republics.

Cuba is a Republic. Russia is a republic. And yes, North Korea is al republic too.

Oh yes, I can see how all of those governments defer to their citizens as the valid source of their political power. Absolutely we see how the People elect their Representatives of their own free will. And the Leader/President/Prime Minster/Executive of their government is 100% nominated in open and free elections.

I need more facepalms...

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Good. Then you can see that America isn't merely a "republic"; That, the qualifying factor, that we utilize a democratic process called democracy, is what makes America different from China, Russia and Cuba.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Good. Then you can see that America isn't merely a "republic"; That, the qualifying factor, that we utilize a democratic process called democracy, is what makes America different from China, Russia and Cuba.

No, the US is a true Republic and not a Democracy. That hasn't changed, no matter how inane of examples you try to throw out.

The only place of small-d democracy on our federal level is with our election of Representatives and unfortunately our Senators.

Thankfully we don't let the easily-fooled majority have any say outside our separate States.

EDIT: And it's a hell of a lot more than how we elect politicians that sets us apart from your so-called 'republics'

a reply to: Teikiatsu

No, the US is a true Republic and not a Democracy.

Oh bother...

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 only place of small-d democracy on our federal level is with our election of Representatives and unfortunately our Senators.

And our President and constitutional amendments.

And it's a hell of a lot more than how we elect politicians that sets us apart from your so-called 'republics'

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

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: LittleJake

please explain to me how senators being appointed by their states bears any semblance to what the people of that state want over what their states power mongers want.

You are confused... the term 'State' doesn't mean the People, it means the State Government(s).

Representatives represent the interests of the People in their State. Senators represent the interests of their State Government. This is precisely why they were always appointed by the State Legislatures.

The Founders were always very precise in their language. When the People is meant, they used the term 'People'. When they used the term State, they meant the government.

Personally, I've been of the firm opinion that, since the 17th Amendment did not repeal Article V wherein it clearly and unequivocally states in the last two sentences that: "Provided that ... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

What that clearly means to anyone with half decent reading comprehension skills, is that the 17th Amendment is almost certainly in violation of the prohibition on Amendments in Article V, thus Unconstitutional on its face.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: LittleJake

I don't see a Constitutional Convention happening any time soon.

And it would end in the final and utter destruction of our Constitutional Republic.

The only safe way to amend the Constitution is through the exact same mechanism used for all of the Amendments have been added to our current Constitution to date. A Conventio would serve only one purpose, as described above.

Anyone who believes that a Constitutional Convention would not end up hijacked by tptb resulting in the loss of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments, is an utter fool.

originally posted by: namehere
as a fan of Republican government and the Constitution i have to disagree, states should have no power over the peoples representation at the national level, otherwise what's the point of the US Constitution, at that point our republic might as well not exist, do you want us to become like the ussr or something?

Ummm... Senators were appointed by their respective State Legislatures until the 17th Amendment was passed, so, for the first 124 years of the life of our nation - oh, and this is how the Founders wanted it to be.

You need to study more, and knee-jerk less.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: BernnieJGato
What it does do is make the People of their state more aware of what their local power mongers are doing and motivate the People to pay more attention.
...
Senators were intended to be the voice of the State legislatures, and act as brakes on the system against the House of Representatives who represent the People. In theory, the Senate would say "Those are good ideas, but our State governments can't afford those ideas as written. Let's make some modifications."

I'd just add that, if I'm not mistaken (tried to find a reference but no luck), Senators were also subject to recall and replacement by a majority of the vote of their State Legislature.

a reply to: LittleJake

Totally agree.

It will never happen.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Sookiechacha
The state legislatures *are* paying attention because they are currently beholden to what comes out of D.C.

If they had even a little power returned to them which could allow them to *alter course*, I think they would take it.

What I would love to see is a gutsy State Legislature - I'm looking at you Florida - pass a law calling for the State Legislature to go back to appointing Senators, citing Article V as the fundamental authority for them to do so.

At the very least it would be a very entertaining show watching the lawsuits play out.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: ketsuko
I take it that you haven't encountered kids who would "get the gay beaten out of them" at home.

Why do some people always resort to gaslighting?

This is NOT about 'gay', this is about permanent mutilations and/or chemical castratiions being forced on kids by the State over Parental objections.

Please stay on point.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe
Isn't it the rule of the majority? I'm pretty sure that the principles of democracy is that the majority rule wins.

Yes, and it is this precise form of tyranny - the tyranny of the 'majority' - that our Founding Fathers hated the most.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
if you think things like this didn't happen before 1913, or wouldn't happen if the 17Th amended to be as it was, I got a bridge for sale.

You seem to think that this one example you tossed out is the way it was. It isn't. That was a special case, onhe easily remedied by the Legislature.

Under normal conditions, Senators were 'elected' by their State Legislatures, not appointed by the Governor. That was due to a vacancy.

thing about corruption, it's always been, always will be, and if allowed to, will grow. letting power mongers pick and choose and sell seats willingly with out some sort of say by the people is just a stupid move.

Yes - but local corruption is easier to remedy than federal corruption.

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe
I think they did, but I still cannot defend the current system (of the past 100 years)
Every part that was meant to provide fairness and equality for the people and oversight of the federal government has been corrupted and bastardized to suit the needs of the two party system. This includes the voting system as well as the electoral college.

It is working as intended. Nothing in politics happens by accident. It is all by design. It is more corrupt now because they intentionally changed it to be easier toi not only corrupt, but easier to hide the corruption - and impossible to (permanently) root it out.

Which is why, contradictory to my beleifs 15 years ago, i fear a constitutional convention.

I never fell for the bait. A Constitutional Convention should never have been included as a potential form of remedy, but, I imagine it was just one of the many concessions they had to make to get the Constitution finished and ratified.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: ketsuko
The direction is all in the hands of the child.

And if you cannot see the utter insanity of placing such decisions in the hands of a child that can't decide from one day to the next what their favorite color is or whether or not they want to be a dinosaur or a policeman, then you are part of the problem.

Children should be left alone to be children. Stop sexualizing them, and they will stop sexualizing themselves.