Democrat or Republican?

[jourgenson]

Well, the U.S. is officially called a democratic republic. Which means that it is government by the people through representatives that they choose. It wouldn't be very pragmatic to have 250+ million people vote on every issue (allow with computers that may be possible in the future).

And like most governments, it is complicated and has other aspects to it. The U.S. postal service is an aspect of Socialism as is social security and a whole host of other things.

No the U.S. is not really isolationist. Although isolationism is not a black or white issue, it tends to be more of a scale. It's less part of the state structure as it is part of the ideology of the current polititions. Of all the current presidential candidates, Gore is the least isolationist and Patty Buchanon is the most (by far

).

Democrat and Republican don't have very much to do with the words democracy and republic. In political science meanings of words tend to change over the years depending on the political climate of a particular time (i.e. liberal and conservative). The names of the 2 currently main parties don't necessarily mean that one is fighting for all people voting on all issues and the other for a legislative republic. Both are fairly happy with the current system. The party names seem to be more for name recognition. Remember that it used to be the Democratic-Republican party and altually isn't that far from that at this upcoming election

.

----------------------------
my eyes, the goggles do nothing

 

[Pyroxy]

Originally posted by jourgenson:
Well, the U.S. is officially called a democratic republic.

Please refer to Section IV, Article IV of the United States constitution, we live in a Constitutional Republic. PERIOD !
http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt

There is a gross fraud that has been perpetrated on the America people regarding making them think we are supposed to have a democratic form of government. Ask any kid or the majority of history teachers in the public schools, most will say democracy. This fraud is basically why our society is so socialistic today. There is a HUGE difference between the 2 that has been forgotten over the years. In a Constitutional Republic your natural rights proclaimed in the Constitution & Bill of Rights are unalienable (NOT INALIENABLE), which means they CANNOT be TAKEN from you without your consent and full knowledge.

----------------------------
Regards,

Pyroxy

Is it time for another Tea Party? Hell YES it is!

 

[Chimpi]

Warning, warning! Brain overload! Danger, do not think any more!

Actually, correction Proxy, our unalienable rights can't be taken away EVER, not just without our consent. They'll always be there unless Congress votes one of the amendments out of the Constitution. I'm learning about all this in History, and have a test in 2 days... so PPPBBBB!!!!!

And yes, I recall reading that the US is a Constitutional Republic. Actually, the only form of government that I'm in favor of is the Constitution. No Articles of Confederation, or democracy, or republic, or communist...but rather many laws written down in a formal contract that decides the federal powers and limits, and also the peoples rights and freedoms, which are first recommended by the people, and voted into the Constitution by what's known as our Congress! You have to admit, those 55 delegates sitting in a hot, stinky room in good 'ol 1787 really were smart!!!

Wow, sometimes I amaze myself!!!

----------------------------
This has been a post from Trumpet Spectacular! You should feel very honored that you have the chance to read it!

<font color="#000000">[Edited by NapoliJ10 on October 16, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>

 

[jourgenson]

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Actually Pyroxy, Article IV, Section 4 doesn not refer to the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic." It only says republic and I do not think that the words "unalienable" or "inalienable" occurs in the Constitution. I think you will find that in the Declaration of Independence which I don't think has aby actual power currently. Also there are in fact no unalienable or inalienable rights in reality because all parts of the Constitution can legally be changed. The Constitution is simply a framework for what a political scientist would call a democratic republic. Democratic simply stating that the people vote for their representatives. And yes the electoral college makes "democracy" debatable to an extent, but that's what we have.

----------------------------
my eyes, the goggles do nothing

 

[jadedskies]

Oh well, I'm not too knowledgeable about the intricate details of a foreign country's constitution, so I can't really help there.

 

[Pyroxy]

Originally posted by jourgenson:
Actually Pyroxy, Article IV, Section 4 doesn not refer to the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic." It only says republic

A republican form guaranteed by our Constitution, hence a Constitutional Republic. See below.

Originally posted by jourgenson:
and I do not think that the words "unalienable" or "inalienable" occurs in the Constitution. I think you will find that in the Declaration of Independence

You are correct, but I did not say that unalienable appeared in both documents, I said "your *natural rights* proclaimed in the Constitution & Bill of Rights are unalienable"

Originally posted by jourgenson:
I don't think has aby actual power currently. Also there are in fact no unalienable or inalienable rights in reality because all parts of the Constitution can legally be changed.

Has the Bill of Rights ever been altered since adoption? Here is the statement that I most closely feel agrees with where I KNOW my unalienable natural rights come from:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

I retain these rights wether or not ANY government says I have them.

Originally posted by jourgenson:
The Constitution is simply a framework for what a political scientist would call a democratic republic.

Maybe I don't quite understand these items then?
http://www.constitution.org/cons/const_quotes.txt
http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm

Originally posted by jourgenson:
Democratic simply stating that the people vote for their representatives. And yes the electoral college makes "democracy" debatable to an extent, but that's what we have.

I agree we have a democracy, now a socialistic democracy in my opinion. The founders of this country warned about these flaws in a democractic form of government based on their knowledge of history and the course previous societies had taken.


On a final note, do you know who counts your votes after an election?
Can representatives from your community observe the vote count of your community if they so desire?
Hmmm...


Also, have you seen this?
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/usdeclar/petition.html


----------------------------
Regards,

Pyroxy

Is it time for another Tea Party? Hell YES it is!

 

[jourgenson]

No the Bill of Rights hasn't been altered. However, there is a movement among some polititions to make burning the flag illegal which would be a modification of free speech and thus a modification to the bill of rights. I don't think that will ever happen, but it shows there are people who would try.

We are really spliting hairs on the name of the system I think. Constitutional Republic and Democratic Republic aren't really that different if the constitution involved calls for a mostly democratic system. My reason for prefering "democratic republic" is that that is the common term that you will find many political scientists, texts and almanacs etc. using. ALthough I just looked it up in the CIA factbook and it said federal republic. They are all very similar. In the really world they are all the same. In a political theory class you might find differences, but that doesn't translate once you add the complications of actually creating and maintain a sytem of government.

Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independence where many rights seem to come from actually has now legal power. Examples here might be slavery which continue in the U.S. for 90 or so years after it was written. There are certainly other examples such as the Japanese "detainment" camps in WWII. So don't hold your breath waiting for that document to protect you.

As far as I'm concerned, inalienable rights are great, but if no state recognizes them then you have essentially nothing. So it is important to pay attention to what is happening in whatever state you live in (state meaning political body rather than the U.S. notion).

----------------------------
my eyes, the goggles do nothing

 

[possum37]

Originally posted by jourgenson:
Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independence where many rights seem to come from actually has now legal power.

It couldn't have any legal power, it's not a legal document. The Constitution is, but the Declaration of Independence is not.

----------------------------
My knob tastes funny.

 

[KNSinatra]

Dearest, you are correct in your assertion: the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson, and greatly influenced by David Hume's philosophy, as well as John Locke's political theory of natural rights, does not exist as legal precedent. However, it is imperative not to glass over the fact that it serves as a very clear reflection (and important one at that!) of the tenets of our nation, and the principles upon which it was founded. That is, it spells out the reasons why the future constitution's checks and balances are all necessary --what we are striving to protect.

All of this poltical squabbling basically concerns the fundamental ideology of our nation, which is in fact, a Constitutional democratic republic (small d and small r). It is democratic in the sense that we elect our leaders, but a republican form of government by which we do not participate in a system of direct democracy (in which every vote counts, and thus majority unfailingly rules). Instead, sectors of people are represented by and individual, and minoritarian rights are preserved and protected (reference my response several months ago to another post to read more on that subject).

Our system of government is indeed a federal republic. In fact, you could say we are a federal, democratic republic. That is, that we are a federation, not a confederation. This all has to do with the amount of discretion and power states wield in respect to a national, central government. The pre-civil war South, and the modern United Nations are two examples of confederations -- the individual pieces (or states) have far more power and authority that the central core. In the US, while the states preserve a unique sort of autonomy, they do maintain a somewhat subservient status to the National scheme (ex. US Constitutional trumps the State Constitutions, the Supreme Court can overturn State Circuit Court decisions, etc.)

And by no means does our country resemble a socialist nation is sturcture -- on need only take a look at our complex system of Federalism (see the 10th ammendment), that is, the gridlock and power struggle between the spheres of the federal, state, and local governments, to see this. I agree that since its conception, our country has in fact socialized a bit in that it's adopted several large scale, overarching programs (FDR's legislation, LBJ's Great Society, etc), however, our federal system (vital for a country of our sheer size and propensity to avoid centralized socilization), and capitalist economic scheme clearly illustrate how we do not resemble a system of socialism. The crown jewel of any welfare state is a universal health care system, which is possibly the most evident distinction between the US and other countries...Though with Hillary elected tothe senate, things could very well change. God help us all. Ok, back to sleep...I took a break from my post-election sleeping spree to fulfill my 1-political-post-per-month quota. Nighty night!

Love, KNS

----------------------------
En fuego, bebe.

<font color="#000000">[Edited by KNSinatra on November 10, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>

 

[liltaz]

Isolationism is a pollicy by a state to not get involved in the affairs of other nations, unless of course they are directly involved. An isolationist might ignore conflict in Middle East, until the oil supply is directly involved then they might move in.

That's how it should be

----------------------------
"No man can be condemed for owning a dog.
As long as he has a dog, he has a friend;
and the poorer he gets, the better friend he has."

- Will Rogers


Loyalty and love are the best things of all, and surely the most lasting. -- My Dog Skip

 

[jourgenson]

I don't wan't to be over dramatic here. But, I fear, I may. I have 2 argument againts isolationism.

1) Ignoring the world can lead to problems that will be harder to solve later. If France, the U.K. and the U.S. had stepped in when Hitler started knocking off Eastern European countries one by one then WWII may have been averted, which would have save many lives and much devastation. Sure, there are more examples, but I figured I just provide one big one. Either that or I'm too lazy to think of any more.

2) The world is "smaller" than it has ever been due to the media, fast travel, the internet and global economics (among other things). When there was an economic downturn in Asia a few years ago the U.S. stock market took a dive right with it. One explanation I have heard for the high cost of LCD screens is that Asia is having trouble producing enough parts.

I am not saying that the U.S. has to step in to every country that has a problem, but it needs to, along with the U.N. and possibly NATO (NATO's usefulness is a whole other story) keep an eye on things. If world peace, saving lives and general helping out doesn't interest you, then at least acting in the best interest of the U.S., both defensively and economically, should.

----------------------------
my eyes, the goggles do nothing

 

[jadedskies]

'Tis a good argument.

----------------------------
From the Word Association thread.
Me: Splat.
Mth: PsychoticIckyThing
Me: Genius
Mth: ::snort::