Democracy in America

[jester]

How far has it really gone?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

[B. Max]

I don't think the guy knows what he's talking about. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy. The national guard is not the militia. Maybe he should get a copy of the constitution and read it. The guy is just another Bush basher.

[M.Dancer]

I don't think guy knows what he's talking about. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy. The national guard is not the militia. Maybe he should get a copy of the constitution and read it. The guy is just another Bush basher.

Regardless of whether the US is a republic or not, it is still a democracy by any definition. What you imply is like saying that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, therefor not a democracy. Clearly the national elections, the state elections and the municple elections are functions of a democracy, rewgardless of the infrastructure of the govt.

And whether the National Guard officially style themselves militias or not, they are militias, as in part time citizen soldiers.

[M.Dancer]

For example, in Canada we have numerous militia regiments which are known as the Army Reserves

Army Reserve

The reserve element of Land Force Command is known as the Army Reserve, and is often referred to by its constitutionally established name, the Militia. It is organized into under-strength brigades (for purposes of administration) along geographic lines. The Army Reserve is very active and has participated heavily in all Canadian army deployments in the last decade, in some cases contributing as much as 40 per cent of each deployment in either individual augmentation, as well as occasional formed sub-units (companies). Reserve regiments have the theoretical administrative capacity to support an entire battalion, but typically only having the deployable manpower of one or two platoons. They are perpetuated as such for the timely absorption of recruits during times of war. Current strength is approximately 15,000, and DND committed to an increase to 18,500 in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces#Primary_Reserve

[Nocrap]

I don't think guy knows what he's talking about. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy. The national guard is not the militia. Maybe he should get a copy of the constitution and read it. The guy is just another Bush basher.

Regardless of whether the US is a republic or not, it is still a democracy by any definition. What you imply is like saying that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, therefor not a democracy. Clearly the national elections, the state elections and the municple elections are functions of a democracy, rewgardless of the infrastructure of the govt.

And whether the National Guard officially style themselves militias or not, they are militias, as in part time citizen soldiers.

This guy might be talking out of his butt...but....the terms 'Democracy' and 'Freedom' are grossly overused and misused. They have become excuses for barbarity. It's like we've all been hypnotized and just like the guy who when under a trance will bark like a dog when he hears a bell ring...the masses close their eyes to any wrongdoing when they hear 'Freedom'. It no longer means anything.

[B. Max]

Regardless of whether the US is a republic or not, it is still a democracy by any definition. What you imply is like saying that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, therefor not a democracy. Clearly the national elections, the state elections and the municple elections are functions of a democracy, rewgardless of the infrastructure of the govt.

And whether the National Guard officially style themselves militias or not, they are militias, as in part time citizen soldiers.

The framers had no ues for democracy. The US is not a democracy by name or definition. The national guard is the national guard and not the militia. Which even the senate agrees with.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti11.html#am2

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

--Alexander Hamilton

"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

--James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (arguing in favor of a constitutional republic)

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

-- John Adams, 1814

"The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."

-- Duke of Northumberland, 1931

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

-- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

"I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both."

-- Thomas Babington Macaulay

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

-- Alexander Tytler

"Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."

-- H.L. Mencken

"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

-- Alexander Hamilton

[Guthrie]

Any American who recalls his junior high school civics, will likely recall America is a, 'Representantive Democracy.' Further, successful students might, likely, remember that a, 'Representantive Democracy,' is also a republic.

It would be nice if you guys were to know this stuff before you begin spewing.

That said, the Buschistas represent the worst assault on our Democracy since the Civil War. They are criminals who have violated both federal statute and the very Constitution itself. They have to go.

[ScottSA]

That said, the Buschistas represent the worst assault on our Democracy since the Civil War. They are criminals who have violated both federal statute and the very Constitution itself. They have to go.

Do you just make this stuff up and spew it out? Do you understand that these charges you throw around like mud have to be somehow attached to a body of law and not simply originate in your center of emotion? Things are not true simply because you feel they ought to be. You DO understand that, right? Do you imagine that no one aside from you would notice or say anything if any of this were true?

[PolyNewbie]

Guthrie:That said, the Buschistas represent the worst assault on our Democracy since the Civil War. They are criminals who have violated both federal statute and the very Constitution itself. They have to go.

ScottSA:Do you just make this stuff up and spew it out? Do you understand that these charges you throw around like mud have to be somehow attached to a body of law and not simply originate in your center of emotion?

Do you realize that I have heard many professors of law say the exact same thing on many radio interview shows? You should do some research. Read Paul Craig Roberts essays. He was just an economic advisor to Reagan - not someone of your stature - obviously - but just maybe do some reading outside Fox news. Check out Guns & Butter or Infowars for commentary from many lawyers and law professors saying the same thing. Shut off that stupid TV set and read something once in your life.

You are sounding more and more like a ding bat every day.

[Guthrie]

I have heard many professors of law say...

I have heard such professors say Bush can be impeached simply for the stuff he's admitted to. Specifically spying on Americans without warrants. THAT violated the Constitution itself. How much worse is the stuff now hidden and what will happen when it all finally comes out?

[sharkman]

Uh, get a grip G. If there was a snowballs chance that Bush could be impeached, the Dems would be all over it like white on rice. The impeachbush crowd is going to have to keep dreaming.

[Guthrie]

Uh, get a grip G. If there was a snowballs chance that Bush could be impeached, the Dems would be all over it like white on rice. The impeachbush crowd is going to have to keep dreaming.

it's only been four months - you need to learn a little patience

the papers for Cheney's impeachment, BTW, have already been filed --- no, it won't be real long now, patience!

[M.Dancer]

Regardless of whether the US is a republic or not, it is still a democracy by any definition. What you imply is like saying that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, therefor not a democracy. Clearly the national elections, the state elections and the municple elections are functions of a democracy, rewgardless of the infrastructure of the govt.

And whether the National Guard officially style themselves militias or not, they are militias, as in part time citizen soldiers.

The framers had no ues for democracy. The US is not a democracy by name or definition. The national guard is the national guard and not the militia. Which even the senate agrees with.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti11.html#am2

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

--Alexander Hamilton

"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

--James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (arguing in favor of a constitutional republic)

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

-- John Adams, 1814

"The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."

-- Duke of Northumberland, 1931

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

-- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

"I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both."

-- Thomas Babington Macaulay

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

-- Alexander Tytler

"Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."

-- H.L. Mencken

"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

-- Alexander Hamilton

I'm familiar with those authors....tell me which part of the government was Mencken attached? Your wingnut site notwithsatnding, a militia is a organisation of citizen soldier as opposed to a standing profesional army.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia

That being dealt with...I suspect you aren't grasping the directness or subtlity of the language.

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

That doesn't mean that they formed something that isn't a democracy...it just means they formed something that has checks and balances.....

But before I waste my time, why don't you explain what a democracy is.

Meanwhile, the CIA description.......

Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...os/us.html#Govt

[M.Dancer]

Now to be fair, the american insurgents, when they framed their breakaway republic, they didn't envision a 100% democracy...and neither do we today. Could you imagine having a national vote on every motion, every bill, every day?

That would be unworkable. Instead they and us, choose delegates. We here use the parlaimentry democratic system, they use the republican democratic system.

But still the original factions did not envision the suffrage the we or american have today. They did not expect that women would one day vote, or slaves be emancipated and allowed to vote, or even white males who did not own substantial real estate or property. It wasn't till 1830 could all white male adults vote.

Times change......

[ScottSA]

I have heard many professors of law say...

I have heard such professors say Bush can be impeached simply for the stuff he's admitted to. Specifically spying on Americans without warrants. THAT violated the Constitution itself. How much worse is the stuff now hidden and what will happen when it all finally comes out?

So what? He's not impeached, and so he clearly can't be or the Dems would have done it long ago. Do you people believe everything you hear on the radio? Good grief, the "illegal war" meme still has legs because of stoned law professors running around trying to interpret intl law as domestic law, so it's no surprise that former tort lawyers are expounding on constitutional law.

[B. Max]

='M.Dancer' date='Apr 24 2007, 10:31 PM' post='211986']

I'm familiar with those authors....tell me which part of the government was Mencken attached? Your wingnut site notwithsatnding, a militia is a organisation of citizen soldier as opposed to a standing profesional army.

I don't know who Menchen is or what he did. That site is not a wingnut site. It is one of the most complete works on the US constitution there is. http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti11.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia

That being dealt with...I suspect you aren't grasping the directness or subtlity of the language.

Well you can argue it against the senate committee and their conclusions.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/senate82.html

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

That doesn't mean that they formed something that isn't a democracy...it just means they formed something that has checks and balances.....

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/republic

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/American...cts/demrep.html

But before I waste my time, why don't you explain what a democracy is.

If you don't want to learn anything, then you are wasting your time.

[ScottSA]

Good grief, this is such a ridiculous argument. Of course the US is a democracy. It's not a pure democracy to be sure, but it is a representative democracy. The US is also a republic; the two terms are no more mutually exclusive than the terms 'communist' and 'authoritarian'. Both can be true simultaneously, and the US is a democratic republic.

Max, you're taking a passage out of context that clearly refers to a distaste of pure democracy; a sort of rabble rule that many at the time were afraid of and later pointed to the French revolution as justification for. But there are two points to be considered: First, you are misreading what is meant by the passage, and second, even if it did say what you think it says, you cannot isolate what this or that original framer of the constitution said from what his colleagues said, because no one framer is responsible for the sum total of the constitution. What if one were to take Jefferson, isolate his fiery rants, and present them as proof that the US is a free for all with no government at all? It was a debate. The constitution is a result of that debate. It is a balance, and a brilliant balance at that, between unworkable purist democracy and the parliamentary monarchy they were leaving behind.

[bush_cheney2004]

....What if one were to take Jefferson, isolate his fiery rants, and present them as proof that the US is a free for all with no government at all? It was a debate. The constitution is a result of that debate. It is a balance, and a brilliant balance at that, between unworkable purist democracy and the parliamentary monarchy they were leaving behind.

Agreed....the balance to Jefferson's idealism came from John Adams and Republicanism, and his prominent work in drafting the Massachusetts Constitution, which in no small way was a foundation for the US Constitution.

[B. Max]

Max, you're taking a passage out of context that clearly refers to a distaste of pure democracy; a sort of rabble rule that many at the time were afraid of and later pointed to the French revolution as justification for. But there are two points to be considered: First, you are misreading what is meant by the passage, and second, even if it did say what you think it says, you cannot isolate what this or that original framer of the constitution said from what his colleagues said, because no one framer is responsible for the sum total of the constitution. What if one were to take Jefferson, isolate his fiery rants, and present them as proof that the US is a free for all with no government at all? It was a debate. The constitution is a result of that debate. It is a balance, and a brilliant balance at that, between unworkable purist democracy and the parliamentary monarchy they were leaving behind.

I'm not misreading anything. Read the last link I posted above. Read Pat Buchanan's, A Republic Not A Democracy.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Article 4 section 4 of the constitution.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,127 and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

127 "In the light of the undoubted fact that by the Revolution it was expected and intended to throw off monarchical and aristocratic forms," says Cooley ("Principles of Constitutional Law"), "there could be no question but that by a republican form of government was intended a government in which not only would the people's representatives make the laws and their agents administer them, but the people would also directly or indirectly choose the executive."

[jester]

As I understand the American democratic system it owes a great deal to the Iroquois nation and its own constitution.

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

Iroquois Constitution

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

The Six Nations: Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth

My first idea when posting this was that democracy has been diminished in modern times and peoples rights have been taken away. In the UK there are now 266 ways the government can enter a house.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

266 excuses the Government has to raid your home | the Daily Mail

Is it the threats that are being used to divert attention from over zealous government actions, and how far will people let this continue till enough is enough. Are these limitations on freedom taking away that freedom itself so are in reality more of a threat than the percieved threats we are being saved from? I think it has reached a point where our own lives are being taken away by our own governments, and what a government takes away it doesn't like giving back........

[PolyNewbie]

We do not live in a democracy in Canada or the USA and this fact is very easy to prove.

Proof

Our governments could finance their expenses through government owned banks (Bank Of Canada) and in the USA, the congress can print money and lend it to the country. In both cases this money can be lent to the government at very low interest rates - around 0.5 % - 1%.

The government chooses to use private bankers to finance these needs. The private bankers receive normal market interest rates and the debts of both countries are ballooning. There is no advantage to using private banks other than the enrichment of the private bankers.

The payment of income tax in the USA pays the interest on these loans (100 % of it). In Canada that figure is about 28 %. Since income tax is our dominant ruler - requiring 1 - 2 days of work effort we can say we live in an economic dictatorship.

Since the only way private banks could get away with financing the government like this would be if they actually controlled governments - which they do. In the USA you can vote for the Rockefeller Democrats or the Rovkefeller Republicans.

No one would vote for a system such as this unless they were crazy. No government responsible to its people would allow such a system to exist.

Therefore both countries are despotic or monarchies controlled by private bankers. Even JKG admits this. The idea of "democracy" is a product of brainwashing. The country can create a variety of calamities to take away the constitution of the USA under executiuve rule. It is therefore no longer a republic.

When people wake up to this the system can change. If people do not wake up we will all be flushed down the same IMF toilet as the other third world countries are around the world.

QED

This is how the banks operate in every country around the world. The idea is to lend them so much money that they cannot collect enough taxes even to pay just the interest. When the country can no longer afford to pay up austerity measures are implemented. This is how the New World Order is being brought into reality. Its been going on for more than 50 years.

Any country that does not submit control of its banks to private indiciduals finds itself at war with the countries already controlled by private bankers.

You can and should learn about this to understand where we are headed.

Money As Debt cartoon about bankers

The Money Masters - detailed historical documentary

There are many books that can be found under search word "Federal Reserve".

[PolyNewbie]

Money has been converted from a metaphysical symbol to a commodity. This has made statements like "we cannot afford to build more roads" a truism rather than a statement of absurduty and this has been done through corruption, robbery and the bending of logic through brainwashing. A statement like that should be the logical equivalent of saying "we don't have enough kilometers to build a road".

[M.Dancer]

I don't know who Menchen is or what he did.

But you quote him. Well I do know who he is. He was a newspaper columnist.

That site is not a wingnut site. It is one of the most complete works on the US constitution there is. http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti11.html

Uh huh......

Well you can argue it against the senate committee and their conclusions.

It's not the cenate commitee I take issue with, it's the extrapolations of the wingnuts

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

That doesn't mean that they formed something that isn't a democracy...it just means they formed something that has checks and balances.....

But before I waste my time, why don't you explain what a democracy is.

If you don't want to learn anything, then you are wasting your time.

In otherwords you are not able to deine a democracy, but you think you can define a republic? And you say I don't want to learn? Well, at least when I quote someone, I will know who the person is and the context they said it rather than just cut and paste brainlessly.

I think you are in over your head....

[B. Max]

name='M.Dancer' date='Apr 26 2007, 11:02 AM' post='212545']

But you quote him. Well I do know who he is. He was a newspaper columnist.

Well good for you. The point was to show that the two framers who are also quoted there.

It's not the cenate commitee I take issue with, it's the extrapolations of the wingnuts

That from your expert opinion no doubt.

In otherwords you are not able to deine a democracy, but you think you can define a republic? And you say I don't want to learn? Well, at least when I quote someone, I will know who the person is and the context they said it rather than just cut and paste brainlessly.

You can try to spin it any way you want. The fact remaims the framers had no use for a democracy as I said and created a republic.

I think you are in over your head....

I doubt it.

[M.Dancer]

You can try to spin it any way you want. The fact remaims the framers had no use for a democracy as I said and created a republic.

I think you are in over your head....

I doubt it.

Suffice to say that democracy is self evident oin the US. I agree that the framers (who Mencken is not) did bot envision a wide reaching democracy as the US enjoys now. They did not envison people who did not own property voting. They did not envision non whites voting. They did not envision women voting.

They didn't envision any of that yet now all those people can vote in the republic, ergo, the republic is democratic.

Now perhaps you would like to grace us with your definition of democracy and show why the US isn't one.....