Alan Ralsky would vote for Ron Paul

[N2RJ]

What's up with the endless Ron Paul spam in Rag Chew?

[W3MIV]

It's the only way open to them to make the Lilliputian seem viable as a candidate.

It is like trying to run Jiminy Cricket for president. All the Tinker Bells will rush to post some gushy nonsense in tribute, hoping against hope that someone will believe them.

Thus, our Tinker Bells tinkle away. Harmless enough.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KG4JYD]

Some people are trolls and would rather spam about a candidate than have legitimate discussion about the race.

[w5klb]

I really shouldn't banter with Ron Paul supporters, but they're trying to make this guy look like some kind of patriot when in fact, he isn't a patriot at all. He's just some Texas Congressman who is clueless about democracy and The Constitution who THINKS (dangerous for Paul) he wants to be President. No one in their right mind would ever vote for him. However, Ron Paul Supporters do have the right to express their views about the man.

We don't have to read nor respond to Ron Paul threads. We can simply ignore them. That's what I would advise everyone here. Me? Since when am I required to follow my own advice? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,09:03)]I really shouldn't banter with Ron Paul supporters, but they're trying to make this guy look like some kind of patriot when in fact, he isn't a patriot at all. He's just some Texas Congressman who is clueless about democracy and The Constitution who THINKS (dangerous for Paul) he wants to be President. No one in their right mind would ever vote for him. However, Ron Paul Supporters do have the right to express their views about the man.

We don't have to read nor respond to Ron Paul threads. We can simply ignore them. That's what I would advise everyone here. Me? Since when am I required to follow my own advice? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I seriously believe that Ron Paul is the only man running who has read the Constitution, at least carefully. In addition, he actually reads books, such as the 911 report, a book that Rudy, the 911 candidate, obviously has not read..

[KI4BNC]

if i vote for ron paul will it make all the "xxxxx would vote for ron paul" posts qo away?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

(fuse lit...running away)

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 30 2007,12:58)]Some people are trolls and would rather spam about a candidate than have legitimate discussion about the race.
We agree. Please stop posting your obvious trolls.

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 30 2007,12:15)]What's up with the endless Ron Paul spam in Rag Chew?
Frustration of dealing with the reality of what will occur in 6-10 weeks. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KG4CGC]

My neighbors schnouzer will vote for Ron Paul.

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,13:03)]We don't have to read nor respond to Ron Paul threads. We can simply ignore them. That's what I would advise everyone here.
We could just tune up or down the band but this is way more fun, for the moment. Maybe we can have even more fun in 6-10 weeks but then again Ron Paul may do a Ross Perot and continue to linger as a topic.

[VE7DCW]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 30 2007,11:08)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 30 2007,12:15)]What's up with the endless Ron Paul spam in Rag Chew?
Frustration of dealing with the reality of what will occur in 6-10 weeks. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Coming to the Rag Chew section ...seeing everything in the world about "Ron Paul" is getting quite old fwiw...as suggested before...change it to "Rue Paul"..let the laughs begin http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 30 2007,10:29)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,09:03)]I really shouldn't banter with Ron Paul supporters, but they're trying to make this guy look like some kind of patriot when in fact, he isn't a patriot at all. He's just some Texas Congressman who is clueless about democracy and The Constitution who THINKS (dangerous for Paul) he wants to be President. No one in their right mind would ever vote for him. However, Ron Paul Supporters do have the right to express their views about the man.

We don't have to read nor respond to Ron Paul threads. We can simply ignore them. That's what I would advise everyone here. Me? Since when am I required to follow my own advice? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I seriously believe that Ron Paul is the only man running who has read the Constitution, at least carefully. In addition, he actually reads books, such as the 911 report, a book that Rudy, the 911 candidate, obviously has not read..
Then you are seriously unaware of the credentials of the other candidates.

Joe Biden, Hilary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson all hold J.D. degrees, and have passed constitutional law classes.

On the other hand, if Dr. Paul has read the constitution closely, he is clear evidence that reading the document is a necessary but not sufficient condition for understanding it, because his declarations of what is and isn't constitutional clearly demonstrate he does not understand it.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 30 2007,11:22)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,13:03)]We don't have to read nor respond to Ron Paul threads. We can simply ignore them. That's what I would advise everyone here.
We could just tune up or down the band but this is way more fun, for the moment. Maybe we can have even more fun in 6-10 weeks but then again Ron Paul may do a Ross Perot and continue to linger as a topic.
We have been assured by Dr Paul's supporters that he will not run as an independent.

Well, except, the same supporters are no assuring us that he has made no such promise.

Ooops.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,11:54)]We have been assured by Dr Paul's supporters that he will not run as an independent.

Well, except, the same supporters are no assuring us that he has made no such promise.

Ooops.
I dont think he has ever said he wont run as an independent. He has indeed said he has no plans on it.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,10:03)]He's just some Texas Congressman who is clueless about democracy and The Constitution who THINKS (dangerous for Paul) he wants to be President.
You do realize the US is NOT a democracy, right?

[n2nh]

With all due respect, it appears that this is splitting hairs:

Quote[/b] ]In 18th century historical usages, especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" was associated with radical egalitarianism and was often defined to mean what we today call direct democracy. In the same historical context, the word "republic" was used to refer to what we now call representative democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. Madison was seeking to distinguish between a direct democracy and a representative democracy, but his choice to do so using the words "democracy" and "republic" had no basis in prior usage of the words.

In contemporary western usage, the term "democracy" usually refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. The term "republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister. Therefore, today the term is used by states which are quite different from the earlier use of the term, such as the former German Democratic Republic and the USSR.

Note that the US Constitution states that the power comes from the people "We the people..." However, some argue that unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens in the US are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. Thomas Jefferson stated that majority rights cannot exist if individual rights do not. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote or government having power to deny any inalienable right. Moreover, the power of elected representatives is also checked by prohibitions against any single individual having legislative, judicial, and executive powers so that basic constitutional law is extremely difficult to change. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."

It is currently more evident that we are a government of men and not laws. In elections we are a representative democracy, but it usually represents the majority. In law, we are constitutional republic where the law is governed by the Constitution to mold the judicial branch to be more even handed with minority populations.

In either case, the United States is recognized as a Democracy.

Democracy and Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 30 2007,13:35)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,10:03)]He's just some Texas Congressman who is clueless about democracy and The Constitution who THINKS (dangerous for Paul) he wants to be President.
You do realize the US is NOT a democracy, right?
How can he realize that which is not correct?

The United States is now and always has been a representational democracy.

Did you flunk civics or are you simply willfully ignorant?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 30 2007,14:02)]With all due respect, it appears that this is splitting hairs:
It might seem like an insignificant difference however it is actually not.

A democracy is majority rule. There are no property rights in a democracy because 10 of your neighbors can vote to take your land and as long as 6 of them agree to it, you have just lost your property.

A democracy is NOT good for the minority and the Founders realized that. IT's why they didn't give us a democracy but a Constitutional Republic in which our representatives are democratically elected. That's the ONLY part of the federal government that is "democratic" are the representatives.

Sheesh ignorance is widespread and dangerous.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 30 2007,23:15)]What's up with the endless Ron Paul spam in Rag Chew?
The answer: FUN! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC9IUX]

Quote[/b] ]I dont think he has ever said he wont run as an independent. He has indeed said he has no plans on it.


He's said he won't run as an independent.

[W2ILP]

The United States is a limited Republic with limited democracy, limited capitalism, limited socialism, limited freedoms, limited religious practices, limited rights to bear arms, get abortions, gamble, sell stuff on Sundays, take or sell unprescribed pharmaceutical items, grow certain weeds or seduce you neighbor's wife and children. #This can all be interpreted from our constitution which was written by a bunch of powdered wigged radicals of 200 years ago who were seeking FREEDOM from the British monarchy only because they refused to pay a tax on tea and on old outdated British newspapers, that were brought to America on sailing ships, along with Black slaves who could be sold and bought without paying any sales tax.

w2ilp (I Like Peace)...I know not what cause others might take but give me LIBERTY or amend the Constitution so that others may not be incarcerated for imposing their rights for life, liberty and the pursuit of wine, women, song and recent factual news on the Internet. #What a revolting development!

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 30 2007,17:14)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 30 2007,14:02)]With all due respect, it appears that this is splitting hairs:
It might seem like an insignificant difference however it is actually not.

A democracy is majority rule. There are no property rights in a democracy because 10 of your neighbors can vote to take your land and as long as 6 of them agree to it, you have just lost your property.

A democracy is NOT good for the minority and the Founders realized that. IT's why they didn't give us a democracy but a Constitutional Republic in which our representatives are democratically elected. That's the ONLY part of the federal government that is "democratic" are the representatives.

Sheesh ignorance is widespread and dangerous.
Our form of government is a representative democracy.

Quote[/b] ]Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances....

Read and Heed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)

Maybe you should consider a remedial Civics course and try to stay awake this time, will ya? It's important.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

[KC9IUX]

Wikipedia?

Whatta joke, but appropriate.

Democratic Information. (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=81454&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex.jhtml%3Fml_vid eo%3D81454&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true)

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Dec. 30 2007,18:53)]Wikipedia?

Whatta joke, but appropriate.
Yeah, I know whatcha mean. However, it was the best I could do for the moment and will hopefully get the lad to engage some gray matter and do some further research into the subject. We can only hope. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[N3ATS]

We are a Constitutional Republic.

Here (http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm)

Quote[/b] ]Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.


Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic)

Quote[/b] ]The United States of America is one of the oldest constitutional republics in the world. According to James Woodburn, in The American Republic and Its Government, "the constitutional republic with its limitations on popular government is clearly involved in the Constitution, as seen in the election of the President, the election of the Senate and the appointment of the Supreme Court." That is, the ability of the people to choose officials in government is checked by not allowing them to elect Supreme Court justices. Woodburn says that in a republic, as distinguished from a democracy, the people are not only checked in choosing officials but also in making laws.


Here (http://www.trimonline.org/website/deceived.htm)

Quote[/b] ]Not only did our Founding Fathers establish a republic, they greatly feared democracy. James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in "Essay #10" of The Federalist Papers: "... 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."

Although such an attitude will surprise most Americans, it is accurate.

The United States Constitution does not contain the word democracy. It does "guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government...." Also, when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, we say, "to the Republic for which it stands," and not "to the Democracy."

The difference between a republic and a democracy was once widely understood in America. The U.S. War Department (superseded by the Department of Defense) taught that difference in a training manual (No. 2000-25) published on November 30, 1928. This official U.S. government document, used at the time for the training of American military personnel, said of democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation

or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

It went on to state: "Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.' "


Here (http://www.teamlaw.org/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm)

Quote[/b] ]A Republic, by definition, has two principle elements, First, it is controlled by Law, therefore it does not control Law.

Second, it recognizes the private independent sovereign nature of each person (man or woman) of competent age and capacity, therefore a Republic must be representative in its nature.


Here (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html) <--The CIA World Factbook

Quote[/b] ]Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition


Here (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)

Quote[/b] ]The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 30 2007,19:14)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 30 2007,14:02)]With all due respect, it appears that this is splitting hairs:
It might seem like an insignificant difference however it is actually not.

A democracy is majority rule. There are no property rights in a democracy because 10 of your neighbors can vote to take your land and as long as 6 of them agree to it, you have just lost your property.

A democracy is NOT good for the minority and the Founders realized that. IT's why they didn't give us a democracy but a Constitutional Republic in which our representatives are democratically elected. That's the ONLY part of the federal government that is "democratic" are the representatives.

Sheesh ignorance is widespread and dangerous.
Apparently you haven't heard about Eminent Domain. They don't need a majority anymore. The majority that elected the Mayor/Governor/Legislature gives them the right to do exactly that for them by proxy. It's the still the majority. Voters only get to say you can take someone's land once a term when they elect someone, but once elected, they (the politician) gets to say it throughout the term as their representative in government.

SO that argument holds no water. Yes, ignorance is widespread and dangerous. And it has come back to bite more than one homeowner on the butt.

If your argument did hold water, tell me, is any of our elected offices representative of the population? Nope. We do not have a distribution of elected officials that reflects the demographics of our country. We are woefully short of Hispanics, Asians, Blacks and Women for the political process/voting/government to be anything BUT a Democracy.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Dec. 30 2007,17:58)]He's said he won't run as an independent.
Link? Video?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,18:43)]Read and Heed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)
Yes, Wikipedia is SUCH a great academic and scholastic resource to be quoting.... how do we know you didn't edit it in your favor prior to posting the link?!?!

[KC9IUX]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (KC9IUX @ Dec. 30 2007,17:58)
He's said he won't run as an independent.

Link? Video?



I wish, I've seen/heard/read so much on his run, it's hard to keep track of.

I do remember that he was directly asked, and answered in the negative.



Quote[/b] ]how do we know you didn't edit it in your favor prior to posting the link?!?!

That happened to me on a different forum.

A guy was telling me something that contradicted all info I could find, so I asked him for a link to support his arguement. I clicked and there was Wikipedia, suppoting his claim.

I checked for edits and saw three done from his location. He kept making mistakes, so he had to re-edit twice.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 30 2007,22:30)]Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Dec. 30 2007,17:58)]He's said he won't run as an independent.
Link? Video?
He said this in the CNN YouTube debate. In fact he was asked that by a Ron Paul supporter.

I'm too lazy to dig up a link, but if you seek, you will find.

Ron Paul specifically said that he's a Republican and has no intention of running as an independent then went on to crow about his achievements in fund raising.

[N2RJ]

Aw hell, here's a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gu0Zt48MvA&feature=related)

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 30 2007,17:14)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 30 2007,14:02)]With all due respect, it appears that this is splitting hairs:
It might seem like an insignificant difference however it is actually not.

A democracy is majority rule. There are no property rights in a democracy because 10 of your neighbors can vote to take your land and as long as 6 of them agree to it, you have just lost your property.

A democracy is NOT good for the minority and the Founders realized that. IT's why they didn't give us a democracy but a Constitutional Republic in which our representatives are democratically elected. That's the ONLY part of the federal government that is "democratic" are the representatives.

Sheesh ignorance is widespread and dangerous.
You are confused about what a democracy is and how majority rule works.

Your example describes a pure democracy with rule by simple majority. That is only one form of democracy.

The United States is a representational democracy. It has different forms of representation and different definitions of majority necessary for a vote for different circumstances.

You really shouldn't be making comments about rampant ignorance, when even your fellow Ron Paul supporters are calling into question some of your claims.

As to ignorance of what the Founding Fathers wanted or did, you seem to have never read Thomas Jefferson on the subject of Democracy, and quoting the Federalist John Adams doesn't really help your libertarian position all that much.

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. -- George Washington

[KC9IUX]

Someone should have told that to whoever wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, they really screwed it up.

Franklin, too.

[N5ZAP]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,11:53)]Joe Biden, Hilary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson all hold J.D. degrees, and have passed constitutional law classes.
Yep, and we all know that Lawyers are the source of all that is right, moral and human in America!

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N5ZAP @ Dec. 30 2007,21:24)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,11:53)]Joe Biden, Hilary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson all hold J.D. degrees, and have passed constitutional law classes.
Yep, and we all know that Lawyers are the source of all that is right, moral and human in America!
Nobody here's talking about right and moral. We're talking about understanding the constitution.

Like it or not, constitutional law is a requirement for a JD, and the level of knowledge required to pass the class is beyond what most libertarians, even Dr. Paul, ever achieve on the subject.

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 30 2007,20:31)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,18:43)]Read and Heed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)
Yes, Wikipedia is SUCH a great academic and scholastic resource to be quoting.... how do we know you didn't edit it in your favor prior to posting the link?!?!
You can't refute my claims so your only response is to claim that I "edited" the link in my favor prior to posting. Riiight. Not true AT ALL. But you go ahead and think what you like. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[N3ATS]

We are a Constitutional Republic.

Here (http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm)

Quote[/b] ]Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.


Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic)

Quote[/b] ]The United States of America is one of the oldest constitutional republics in the world. According to James Woodburn, in The American Republic and Its Government, "the constitutional republic with its limitations on popular government is clearly involved in the Constitution, as seen in the election of the President, the election of the Senate and the appointment of the Supreme Court." That is, the ability of the people to choose officials in government is checked by not allowing them to elect Supreme Court justices. Woodburn says that in a republic, as distinguished from a democracy, the people are not only checked in choosing officials but also in making laws.


Here (http://www.trimonline.org/website/deceived.htm)

Quote[/b] ]Not only did our Founding Fathers establish a republic, they greatly feared democracy. James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in "Essay #10" of The Federalist Papers: "... 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."

Although such an attitude will surprise most Americans, it is accurate.

The United States Constitution does not contain the word democracy. It does "guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government...." Also, when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, we say, "to the Republic for which it stands," and not "to the Democracy."

The difference between a republic and a democracy was once widely understood in America. The U.S. War Department (superseded by the Department of Defense) taught that difference in a training manual (No. 2000-25) published on November 30, 1928. This official U.S. government document, used at the time for the training of American military personnel, said of democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation

or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

It went on to state: "Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.' "


Here (http://www.teamlaw.org/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm)

Quote[/b] ]A Republic, by definition, has two principle elements, First, it is controlled by Law, therefore it does not control Law.

Second, it recognizes the private independent sovereign nature of each person (man or woman) of competent age and capacity, therefore a Republic must be representative in its nature.


Here (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html) <--The CIA World Factbook

Quote[/b] ]Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition


Here (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)

Quote[/b] ]The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

[N4AUD]

Whatever the reason for the spam it isn't HELPING your candidate, and probably just the opposite. It's the internet equivalent of a yard full of "Vote For" signs. After about 2 or 3, it looks really stupid.

[N3ATS]

Sorry, but for some people it takes just a little more time for it to sink in.

[N4AUD]

Whatever.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Dec. 31 2007,06:59)]Sorry, but for some people it takes just a little more time for it to sink in.
That's why it's taking so long to open your eyes.

[al2i]

Elitists, authoritarians, and slaves agree that Ron Paul sucks.

[N4AUD]

I haven't decided yet if Ron Paul sucks or not, but I've known for a long time that spam sucks and I avoid supporting organizations that use it.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 30 2007,22:31)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,18:43)]Read and Heed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)
Yes, Wikipedia is SUCH a great academic and scholastic resource to be quoting.... how do we know you didn't edit it in your favor prior to posting the link?!?!
Wikipedia, while easily editable by anyone, boasts:

- A full revision history
- More peer review than any other source.

However, I'd never use it for any academic work, since it's not generally recognized as an accredited source.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (n4aud @ Dec. 31 2007,07:02)]I haven't decided yet if Ron Paul sucks or not, but I've known for a long time that spam sucks and I avoid supporting organizations that use it.
Pretty much, as well as people who break the law to get their message out.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 31 2007,06:39)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Dec. 31 2007,06:59)]Sorry, but for some people it takes just a little more time for it to sink in.
That's why it's taking so long to open your eyes.
Audie,

My comment wasn't directed at you. KLB asked for proof, which I provided to him several times, and he continues to ignore it.


Albert,

I've cited many sources that can clearly show we are a Constitutional Republic. It's clear what the framers had in mind, not to mention the very definition reflects on how our government was set-up and continues to operate.

Because yourself and Marty say it isn't, doesn't make it so.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Dec. 31 2007,09:50)]Because yourself and Marty say it isn't, doesn't make it so.
Et tu, Brute?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 30 2007,21:11)]Aw hell, here's a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gu0Zt48MvA&feature=related)
If you notice Ron Paul said "I have no intention of doing this"

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,21:15)]The United States is a representational democracy. It has different forms of representation and different definitions of majority necessary for a vote for different circumstances.
Please quote where in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (or even the Articles of Confederation) where the word "democracy" is used?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n4aud @ Dec. 31 2007,05:02)]I haven't decided yet if Ron Paul sucks or not,
You should read some of his original writings:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/


You can also see some of his videos on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/ronpaul2008dotcom

[W3MIV]

I think it was Emerson who pointed out that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind."

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 31 2007,10:46)]I think it was Emerson who pointed out that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind."
You just made my day Albert. God bless you. And Happy New Year too.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,20:34)]Like it or not, constitutional law is a requirement for a JD, and the level of knowledge required to pass the class is beyond what most libertarians, even Dr. Paul, ever achieve on the subject.

It is hard to find a group of professionals wading in deeper BS than the legal profession -- except perhaps politicians. Good point about those who are both kinds of liar.

I agree with and admire Ron Paul's reading of the Constitution, which was written to be read without spoonfeeding from professional liars, and which begins with "We the People".

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,11:49)]I agree with and admire Ron Paul's reading of the Constitution, which was written to be read without spoonfeeding from professional liars, and which begins with "We the People".
With that statement you betray a very thin knowledge of the Constitution, its creation and its development over the years.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,07:49)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 31 2007,10:46)]I think it was Emerson who pointed out that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind."
You just made my day Albert. God bless you. And Happy New Year too.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Where is the Phony's anonymous meeting?

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,10:53)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,07:49)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 31 2007,10:46)]I think it was Emerson who pointed out that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind."
You just made my day Albert. God bless you. And Happy New Year too.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Where is the Phony's anonymous meeting?
Let's see, 4 threads here, none refuted. And I'm the phony? Get serious. Nothing has been disproven from any of those. Oh, yes, you've called the Thread Starter a Phony, Animal, Liar, Jerk, Inconsiderate New Yorker for posting what you didn't like. OTOH, nothing has refuted one iota of any of those threads. Yeh, you're very convincing Dave. What's anonymous? Not me. OTOH, when's Paul going to release those issues of "Ron Paul Political Report"? The ones he's refusing to give the press when they ask for it? Why would he do that?

You'd make a lousy cop. You can dish it out, but cry like a woman when you don't like something. I'd even bet you'd taser someone for calling you an animal. Just like all those bad cops you don't like, you have a lot in common with them. Thin skinned people are like that.

Want I should post the 'racist' article from the Ron Paul Newsletter? That should make interesting reading.

Do you know that the "Ron Paul Political Report" made the list. Which list? The Heritage Front's "RACIALIST ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS" list. Don't take my word for it, read for yourself: Ron Paul Political Report - on the "Racialist List" (http://www.heritagefront.com/updates/lobbyhf.html#9)

Let me know when you have something to refute even one of these things. Funny, I posted this because of the erroneous posting of one cultist about the Times story. And all the others scrambled out as soon as I did with personal attacks and nothing else. Let me know when you get tired of the truth. Oh, yeh, that was the moment it came out.

But it's nice to see that you say what's in your heart. All that name calling and it's okay isn't it?

[W3MIV]

Desperation reigns, I see.

I have been, and likely will continue to be, called many things, not all of which are laudatory. However, "anonymous" would definitely be a first. I trust, therefore, that this weak thrust was aimed to my north?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,08:14)]All that name calling and it's okay isn't it?
No it is not, but you seem to think it is. As you are painfully aware, Ron Paul is not a racist, but you have dug this hole and cannot climb out. Enjoy.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 30 2007,10:03)]I really shouldn't banter with Ron Paul supporters, but they're trying to make this guy look like some kind of patriot when in fact, he isn't a patriot at all. He's just some Texas Congressman who is clueless about democracy and The Constitution who THINKS (dangerous for Paul) he wants to be President. No one in their right mind would ever vote for him. However, Ron Paul Supporters do have the right to express their views about the man.

We don't have to read nor respond to Ron Paul threads. We can simply ignore them. That's what I would advise everyone here. Me? Since when am I required to follow my own advice? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Amazing... I actually agree with most of what you say here.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,11:33)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,08:14)]All that name calling and it's okay isn't it?
No it is not, but you seem to think it is. As you are painfully aware, Ron Paul is not a racist, but you have dug this hole and cannot climb out. Enjoy.
Enjoy
As You Like It. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=179433;r=1)

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Dec. 31 2007,03:25)]We are a Constitutional Republic.
Yes we are.

We are governed by a constitution.

We do not have hereditary rulers.

Now then, how are decisions made in our Constitutional Republic?

Democratically, of course.

In this country, the majority does, indeed, rule.

But it is not always a simple majority, and it is not always direct rule. It is a representational democracy.

Even the constitution itself can be changed by the majority, and has been so amended on a few occasions.

The brilliance of the American form of democracy comes from the recognition that the more sweeping the impact of a change, the larger the majority must be to affect it.

If anything, we err slightly in favor of the tyranny of the minority, since change at some levels requires such large majorities.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about republicanism and the role of the majority:

Quote[/b] ]"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism."

I hope you don't mind if I prefer the Founder's opinion on what constituted a Republic over your later day sources.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Dec. 31 2007,06:50)]Because yourself and Marty say it isn't, doesn't make it so.
How about primary sources?

Thomas Jefferson, (you'll recall him, he's the founder of the Democratic-Republic party,) wrote a lot on the importance of democracy in a government.

Here's another sample:

Quote[/b] ]"The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:420

The US is, indeed, a constitutional republic.

Being a republic does not prevent also being a democracy.

It's both.

It's that simple.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,08:56)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,11:33)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,08:14)]All that name calling and it's okay isn't it?
No it is not, but you seem to think it is. As you are painfully aware, Ron Paul is not a racist, but you have dug this hole and cannot climb out. Enjoy.
Enjoy
As You Like It. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=179433;r=1)
So you are admitting that Ron Paul is not a racist?

[N3ATS]

Decisions are made by elected "rulers" who are representative of the people.

The reps make laws, not the people as a body. If it were the other way around it could be considered a democracy.

Here is where I derive most of my argument.

http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/newsletter/sep96nl.html

Nonetheless it was clear that the founders disagreed with each other often. Something I have come to learn from this debate.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,14:23)]Quote[/b] ]"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism."

I hope you don't mind if I prefer the Founder's opinion on what constituted a Republic over your later day sources.
Not to quibble, but Jefferson is not a Founder. Indeed, he opposed the Constitution, and it was a topic on which he and Madison had a rare disagreement, though Madison later reversed himself and adopted some political positions counter to his own Federalist writings in order to further the cause of political party politics.

[al2i]

The whole Constitutional Republic vs Democracy thing is tied up in semantics. The salient point is that we are not an unlimited democracy in that the minority has rights that are Constitutionally protected from the whims of the majority. The smallest minority is of course, the individual.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 31 2007,08:29)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,21:15)]The United States is a representational democracy. It has different forms of representation and different definitions of majority necessary for a vote for different circumstances.
Please quote where in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (or even the Articles of Confederation) where the word "democracy" is used?
Why?

The word 'elect', in various forms shows up amply in the Constitution, and 'elect' is how democracies choose their leaders.

The 17th amendment is the clearest example of democratic principles enshrined in the constitution, of course.

The 12 amendment uses the word 'majority' to describe the process of presidential election, and replaces original text that did the same.

The word 'majority' is used to establish quorums for congressional business, and 2/3 is mentioned as the necessary majority to expel a member.

Quote[/b] ]"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson

Of course, the New Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines Republic as

Quote[/b] ]a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government

and 'citizens entitled to vote' qualifies as 'democracy.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,08:49)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,20:34)]Like it or not, constitutional law is a requirement for a JD, and the level of knowledge required to pass the class is beyond what most libertarians, even Dr. Paul, ever achieve on the subject.

It is hard to find a group of professionals wading in deeper BS than the legal profession -- except perhaps politicians. Good point about those who are both kinds of liar.

I agree with and admire Ron Paul's reading of the Constitution, which was written to be read without spoonfeeding from professional liars, and which begins with "We the People".
You're moving the goal posts again, McGraw.

You claimed that Paul was the only one who had read the Constitution closely. It is not possible to obtain a JD without having done so, so the JDs mentioned have indeed read the Constitution closely and you were wrong.

By the way, not all lawyers are liars, but then it's more convenient to be bigoted against lawyers than to accept the simple reality that Paul doesn't have the constitutional training of most of his opponents. So much for capital T truth.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,14:30)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,08:56)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,11:33)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,08:14)]All that name calling and it's okay isn't it?
No it is not, but you seem to think it is. #As you are painfully aware, Ron Paul is not a racist, but you have dug this hole and cannot climb out. #Enjoy.
Enjoy
As You Like It. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=179433;r=1)
So you are admitting that Ron Paul is not a racist?
I don't believe John ever made the point that Paul was a "racist," per se.

His point, and a very valid one I think, would more accurately be that Ron Paul disingenuously permitted himself to be seen as a sort of "fellow traveler" in order to garner what support he could from racists and other bottom feeders until the glare became a bit too harsh for his not-so-delicate polticial complexion. Once revealed, Paul sought to equivocate instead of openly and forthrightly denouncing all such connections and returning any funds collected from them.

It is sadly telling that supporters accept his duplicitous, even mendacious explanations and pass it all off as some sort of innocent misunderstanding.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 31 2007,11:35)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,14:23)]Quote[/b] ]"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism."

I hope you don't mind if I prefer the Founder's opinion on what constituted a Republic over your later day sources.
Not to quibble, but Jefferson is not a Founder. Indeed, he opposed the Constitution, and it was a topic on which he and Madison had a rare disagreement, though Madison later reversed himself and adopted some political positions counter to his own Federalist writings in order to further the cause of political party politics.
Jefferson was not one of the authors of the constitution, but he was active in the founding of the country, both in Virginia politics and as a representative abroad, as well as serving as Washington's secretary of state. As president he did more to set its direction than any who had come before him.

I think you oversimplify to say that he opposed the constitution. Rather, it is fair to say that he was not happy with the constitution without the 10th amendment, because of its tendency towards strong federalism, but in the end he wrote

Quote[/b] ]"I am persuaded no Constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1809.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,10:42)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,08:49)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,20:34)]Like it or not, constitutional law is a requirement for a JD, and the level of knowledge required to pass the class is beyond what most libertarians, even Dr. Paul, ever achieve on the subject.

It is hard to find a group of professionals wading in deeper BS than the legal profession -- except perhaps politicians. Good point about those who are both kinds of liar.

I agree with and admire Ron Paul's reading of the Constitution, which was written to be read without spoonfeeding from professional liars, and which begins with "We the People".
You're moving the goal posts again, McGraw.

You claimed that Paul was the only one who had read the Constitution closely. It is not possible to obtain a JD without having done so, so the JDs mentioned have indeed read the Constitution closely and you were wrong.
Good point. The way I said that was absurd. I believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate that reads the Constitution closely to see how it applies to current government activity. He is the only one who does not treat the Constitution as a convenience or inconvenience of the day.

Quote[/b] ]
By the way, not all lawyers are liars, but then it's more convenient to be bigoted against lawyers than to accept the simple reality that Paul doesn't have the constitutional training of most of his opponents. So much for capital T truth.

I never said all lawyers are liars, but if you want professional liars, a couple of professions that leap to mind are politicians and lawyers. I think you would make a fine lawyer BTW.

I say again that the Constitution was written in plain language by and for "We the People", and not designed to be a deep, inaccessible mystery.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 31 2007,10:46)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,14:30)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,08:56)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,11:33)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 31 2007,08:14)]All that name calling and it's okay isn't it?
No it is not, but you seem to think it is. As you are painfully aware, Ron Paul is not a racist, but you have dug this hole and cannot climb out. Enjoy.
Enjoy
As You Like It. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=179433;r=1)
So you are admitting that Ron Paul is not a racist?
I don't believe John ever made the point that Paul was a "racist," per se.

His point, and a very valid one I think, would more accurately be that Ron Paul disingenuously permitted himself to be seen as a sort of "fellow traveler" in order to garner what support he could from racists and other bottom feeders until the glare became a bit too harsh for his not-so-delicate polticial complexion. Once revealed, Paul sought to equivocate instead of openly and forthrightly denouncing all such connections and returning any funds collected from them.

It is sadly telling that supporters accept his duplicitous, even mendacious explanations and pass it all off as some sort of innocent misunderstanding.
Paul erred it is certainly true, but John repeatedly attempted to smear Ron Paul as a racist, both on the Island and here. If John gave a flying flip about genuine racism, he would not use it as a label of convenience to smear a candidate who is completely non-racist.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Dec. 31 2007,11:33)]Decisions are made by elected "rulers" who are representative of the people.

The reps make laws, not the people as a body. If it were the other way around it could be considered a democracy.

Here is where I derive most of my argument.

http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/newsletter/sep96nl.html

Nonetheless it was clear that the founders disagreed with each other often. Something I have come to learn from this debate.
Get better sources. That site is awful.

It misrepresents what Adams meant, it slides over what "derived from the people" meant, it misses altogether that Adams was a Federalist and his republic would have had a strong central government, unlike that of the Republicans, who, gave us Jefferson's description of republicanism that I quoted elsewhere.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,11:37)]The whole Constitutional Republic vs Democracy thing is tied up in semantics. The salient point is that we are not an unlimited democracy in that the minority has rights that are Constitutionally protected from the whims of the majority. The smallest minority is of course, the individual.
Almost completely correct.

Even the constitution itself is subject to the will of the majority, through the amendment process.

But, and this but is the true brilliance of US constitutional law, the majority required in such a case is not a simple majority.

If enough people in enough states elect enough representatives who support a particular amendment then the amendment happens.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,14:11)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,11:37)]The whole Constitutional Republic vs Democracy thing is tied up in semantics. The salient point is that we are not an unlimited democracy in that the minority has rights that are Constitutionally protected from the whims of the majority. The smallest minority is of course, the individual.
Almost completely correct.

Even the constitution itself is subject to the will of the majority, through the amendment process.

But, and this but is the true brilliance of US constitutional law, the majority required in such a case is not a simple majority.

If enough people in enough states elect enough representatives who support a particular amendment then the amendment happens.
That's exactly what I pointed out a few posts back. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

The only thing that is done in the U.S.that even comes close to being called a democracy is how we choose our senators and representatives.

Even those are chosen based on different congressional districts, and the number of representatives we have is based on the population. This allows for a greater voice over different areas and by the numbers of the population. It assures that a multitude of people are given more than one voice in legislature.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,15:01)]Quote[/b] ]"I am persuaded no Constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1809.
Good quote. One that points up the difficulty of trying to pin Jefferson down on much of anything, particularly after he extensively edited his correspondence to remove items that might have been embarrassing to him either personally or politically in posterity.

Jefferson argued extensively with Madison about the constitution -- Madison being intimately involved in it, and, as you correctly note, Jefferson being in France. Madison, through some of the most perceptive political thinking of the age managed only to get Jefferson to acquiesce, but he never accepted the Constitution happily. It was not "democratic" enough for him -- and he was using the very definition under assault in this thread. Jefferson believed in a unicameral legislature and extremely restricted powers in the executive.

The constitutional convention largely followed Adams's model* for a bicameral government segregated into executive, judicial and legislative branches, and each branch would enjoy broad independence. No one properly foresaw the difficulties posed by the judiciary until John Marshall established a sort of "primacy" that Jefferson utterly rejected -- and not soley because he hated Marshall.

The quote you cite above is made all the more interesting because it was made in retropection with regard to his own violation of his political principles with regard to the Louisiana Purchase. While that was an absolute stroke of genius, it was for Jefferson a wrenching, personal struggle for it went contrary to his strait-laced "republican" morality. He felt that it was wholly unconstitutional for the executive to acquire territory -- that was "monarchical" conduct, hence reprehensible to Jefferson. Yet he did it (and we must all celebrate that he overcame his struggle to do so). At about $0.04 per acre, it was a far, far better deal than Manhattan.

On the other hand, it brings a justifiable question to the fore with regard to the ethics Jefferson followed. He was harshly critical of many of his fellow patriots (he hated Henry, Marshall, Burr and more), yet he had a marvelous facility for forgiving his own lapses. Much new research is being done in these areas of Jefferson's very complex character. In every way, Thomas Jefferson was the prototype of today's extremely partisan politician -- though he nearly always managed to have someone else front for him in the clinches (often Jemmy Madison).

73

* I should note that this model became known as the "Virginia" model because that state had adopted for its constitution the plan Adams had put for in his "thoughts on government" or some such title that now eludes me.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,11:38)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 31 2007,08:29)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,21:15)]The United States is a representational democracy. It has different forms of representation and different definitions of majority necessary for a vote for different circumstances.
Please quote where in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (or even the Articles of Confederation) where the word "democracy" is used?
Why?

The word 'elect', in various forms shows up amply in the Constitution, and 'elect' is how democracies choose their leaders.

The 17th amendment is the clearest example of democratic principles enshrined in the constitution, of course.

The 12 amendment uses the word 'majority' to describe the process of presidential election, and replaces original text that did the same.

The word 'majority' is used to establish quorums for congressional business, and 2/3 is mentioned as the necessary majority to expel a member.

Quote[/b] ]"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson
The citizens don't elect the President; the electors do.

The People only elect their representatives. So our representatives are democratically elected. But we still live in a Constitutional Republic

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Dec. 31 2007,12:29)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,14:11)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 31 2007,11:37)]The whole Constitutional Republic vs Democracy thing is tied up in semantics. The salient point is that we are not an unlimited democracy in that the minority has rights that are Constitutionally protected from the whims of the majority. The smallest minority is of course, the individual.
Almost completely correct.

Even the constitution itself is subject to the will of the majority, through the amendment process.

But, and this but is the true brilliance of US constitutional law, the majority required in such a case is not a simple majority.

If enough people in enough states elect enough representatives who support a particular amendment then the amendment happens.
That's exactly what I pointed out a few posts back. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

The only thing that is done in the U.S.that even comes close to being called a democracy is how we choose our senators and representatives.

Even those are chosen based on different congressional districts, and the number of representatives we have is based on the population. This allows for a greater voice over different areas and by the numbers of the population. It assures that a multitude of people are given more than one voice in legislature.
You forgot how we elect our presidents, which is through representative democracy, and how the Senate and House operate, their own procedures being by direct democracy, as well as how elections operate at the state and local level.

And most states, through an initiative process, even have law making by direct democracy.

Senators, congressmen and electors are elected by direct democracy to be representatives who use direct democracy in their deliberative bodies to execute the will of the electorate.

The president is elected indirectly by the electors who were elected directly.

Even the president's most senior employees are chosen democratically, as they require the 'advise and consent' of the congress.

Democracy and majority rule are ever and everywhere part of the US process.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 31 2007,13:14)]Jefferson argued extensively with Madison about the constitution -- Madison being intimately involved in it, and, as you correctly note, Jefferson being in France. Madison, through some of the most perceptive political thinking of the age managed only to get Jefferson to acquiesce, but he never accepted the Constitution happily. It was not "democratic" enough for him -- and he was using the very definition under assault in this thread. Jefferson believed in a unicameral legislature and extremely restricted powers in the executive.

Jefferson and Madison argued each other into more central positions than the other had held.

Quote[/b] ]The quote you cite above is made all the more interesting because it was made in retropection with regard to his own violation of his political principles with regard to the Louisiana Purchase.

Not violation, change. Jefferson grew up in office.


Quote[/b] ]On the other hand, it brings a justifiable question to the fore with regard to the ethics Jefferson followed. He was harshly critical of many of his fellow patriots (he hated Henry, Marshall, Burr and more), yet he had a marvelous facility for forgiving his own lapses. Much new research is being done in these areas of Jefferson's very complex character. In every way, Thomas Jefferson was the prototype of today's extremely partisan politician -- though he nearly always managed to have someone else front for him in the clinches (often Jemmy Madison).

As far as I can tell, the only one of the bunch who wasn't extremely partisan was Washington. Hamilton certainly is a better model of the modern partisan politician even than Jefferson, and the bickering between the two of them when they were both in Washington's cabinet was impressive.

It is the fashion in this later day of lesser men to emphasis Jefferson's feet of clay, but, as you say, they all had the warts, and Jefferson did what none of the others, save Marshall did: he set the future course of the country.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 31 2007,14:56)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,11:38)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 31 2007,08:29)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 30 2007,21:15)]The United States is a representational democracy. It has different forms of representation and different definitions of majority necessary for a vote for different circumstances.
Please quote where in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (or even the Articles of Confederation) where the word "democracy" is used?
Why?

The word 'elect', in various forms shows up amply in the Constitution, and 'elect' is how democracies choose their leaders.

The 17th amendment is the clearest example of democratic principles enshrined in the constitution, of course.

The 12 amendment uses the word 'majority' to describe the process of presidential election, and replaces original text that did the same.

The word 'majority' is used to establish quorums for congressional business, and 2/3 is mentioned as the necessary majority to expel a member.

Quote[/b] ]"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson
The citizens don't elect the President; the electors do.

The People only elect their representatives. So our representatives are democratically elected. But we still live in a Constitutional Republic
The citizens elect representatives who represent their interest in the election of the president.

This is why we live in a representative democracy.

The government is not heredity, so it is, indeed also a republic. Please reread the quote from Jefferson on republican principals and try to understand it.

You keep drawing a false dichotomy.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 31 2007,19:58)]You forgot how we elect our presidents, which is through representative democracy, and how the Senate and House operate, their own procedures being by direct democracy, as well as how elections operate at the state and local level.

And most states, through an initiative process, even have law making by direct democracy.

Senators, congressmen and electors are elected by direct democracy to be representatives who use direct democracy in their deliberative bodies to execute the will of the electorate.

The president is elected indirectly by the electors who were elected directly.

Even the president's most senior employees are chosen democratically, as they require the 'advise and consent' of the congress.

Democracy and majority rule are ever and everywhere part of the US process.
Ehhh, only really in the election process, as you pointed out.

The government itself is hardly a democracy, with the exception of the federal election process. Even that too, with the use of the Electoral College, ensures the minority voice is heard.

The Senate and House are not elected as a democracy, as I pointed out with the districts and the number of reps per so many of population. This is to ensure adequate representation of the people by not relying on the the majority to choose just one or a few candidates. Their procedures may be carried out in a direct democracy, but the people choose them quite differently.

They are still carrying out their legislative duties as a set forth in the law of the land as a constitutional republic. If every voter were to decide via ballot on legislation, that would be more of a democracy, or mob rule.

[w6wtf]

I like Cheese!!!
Happy New Year!!