the founders did not create democracy ,they created a constitutional republic, america has moved--------> closer to representative democracy with the removal of the check and balance of government...the 17th amendment to the constitution.
you are thick.
DEMOCRACY IS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.....OURS IS REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT thick.
"In Republican government power is NOT in one set of hands,......its in the hands of the ...people...states, and the electoral college, which presents the union/nation. Since power is not concentrated in one set of hands, (special interest or faction), cannot work as easy to get government to create programs or laws, which they wish to create for THEIR INTEREST,... because the house cannot create programs or laws, which would expand government power and takeaway the VAST powers the states are charged with ( because the senate is controlled by state legislators). [Now on the other end of the spectrum]...........(state legislators) cannot use the senate........to create programs or laws, which deal with money, and make the people PAY for them, because the constitution only gives the house the authority to appropriate money."
That is just to explain to people that power is divided in the state and this means just that the senate and the house have different attributes. In other words, it means that you have a bicameral congress in which each chamber of congress does something else. You don't have 2 chamber of congress that do the same thing.
THIS ABOVE MEANS POWER IN NOT ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE , BUT 3 SETS OF HANDS,............ AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE A DEMOCRACY!
Yes, it does.
THE ONLY THREAD<------ OF DEMOCRACY CREATED BY THE FOUNDERS IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THAT IS ALL.
The electoral college is direct democracy. Sorry. It is. 50%+1 = a candidate gets all the electors to vote for him. If it were representative as in, representative republic, if there were 10 electors for florida and romney got 40% of the vote and Obama 60%, 4 electors would go to Romney, 6 to Obama. But since it is all or nothing, that means that the majority, regardless of how small, trumps the minority, Obama gets all if he has 50%+1 of the votes.
Alexander Fraser Tytler -- "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can ((vote)) itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, *(the majority always --->votes for the CANDIDATE promising the most benefits<--- )* with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
yes. democracy cannot survive if people steal form themselves or get stolen. No surprise... because there will be chaos and in times of chaos, dictators usually rise. It is the trend in history.
FEDERALIST 10 JAMES MADISON-- "The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican<----- (than of) ------>democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter"
MADISON IS SAYING YOU WILL HAVE LESS FACTIOUS COMBINATIONS .....UNDER REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT......(THAN OF) DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT ............CLEARLY........HE DRAWS A CONTRAST AND DEFINES THE TWO AS ----->DIFFERENT.
well if you look at the document in the national archives..it reads unalienable.
well if you look at the document in the national archives..it reads unalienable.
In other words. Direct democracy is found in the electoral college in the USA. Which explains why it is so undemocratic. Because you, dear ersnt, can win the presidency with less than 23% of the popular vote.
Representative democracy is found in the congress. That is all.
The republic states that there are powers in the state -> executive, legislative and judicial. Among other things.
So you have a representative republic which elects its head of state through an intricate bull**** system called the electoral college which is quite the most undemocratic thing.
If things still aren't clear, there is no point. I suggest we have a long discussion about it, just the 2 of us, in which we analyze and see what the property of terms mean. Or even better, you look them up.
america was created with 1 direct and two indirect votes, that does not make democracy.
FEDERALIST PAPER #39 – Conformity of the Plan to ..........Republican Principles
please if you will produce a document by the (founders) which states we have representative democracy.
because John Adams says we don't!
John Adams?
Awesome. Why does that matter?
very good question sir, and thank you for asking it.
Unalienable / Inalienable
UNALIENABLE.
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights
it discusses how the word was used during the writing of the document.Your first link says "The two words mean precisely the same thing."
it discusses how the word was used during the writing of the document.
it was written both ways, but the final one was unalienable, to mean it cannot never be taken, not even by surrendering it.
The fact that it was written both ways indicates that, indeed, the words mean precisely the same thing.
think about this, inalienable, does it mean it can never been removed from you?............yes it can, you can surrender your rights.
unalienable cannot be surrendered, it in no way can be removed from you.
This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.
Nonsense. They mean precisely the same thing.
The problem here is that you are using the second link as though it is a good source, but I tell you right now, it's pure ****. Here's how anyone can tell it's ****: it uses different sources to get it's definitions for different words rather than using the same dictionary for each word. Logically, that's invalid.
For example, it uses Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition to define Unalienable, but does NOT use this dictionary to define Inalienable. If it did use the same dictionary, it would see that the terms mean precisely the same thing.
Here's the Definition of Inalienable from Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition:
Unalienable from the same source:
Those definitions, while worded slightly differently, have precisely the same meaning. Even the examples in both (public roads, the right to liberty) are identical.
It is extremely important to use good sources, and to not cherry pick sources to achieve your desired argument. The second source you cited in this debate failed to be consistent in it's arguments, and is thus, an invalid source for information.
Link to dictionary: Bouvier Law Dictionary
Has there ever been a failed socialist state (i.e A socialist state that has either collapsed into anarchy and/or a capitalist state OR A state that has economically failed)?
Moreover out of curiosity to be honest, These countries CANNOT be included: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States (i.e 1980s eastern europe)
Has there ever been a failed socialist state (i.e A socialist state that has either collapsed into anarchy and/or a capitalist state OR A state that has economically failed)?
Moreover out of curiosity to be honest, These countries CANNOT be included: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States (i.e 1980s eastern europe)
Has there ever been a failed socialist state (i.e A socialist state that has either collapsed into anarchy and/or a capitalist state OR A state that has economically failed)?
Moreover out of curiosity to be honest, These countries CANNOT be included: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States (i.e 1980s eastern europe)
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the (Consent) of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You just did exactly what I pointed out was invalid logic: use different source for different definitions rather than the same source for both. That's called "cherry picking" and it is invalid logic. Your argument has no merit because of it.
You didn't even use a dictionary for one of the definitions, but instead used a court case as though that's not an utterly asinine way to get a definition for a word.
Seriously, your argument can only have the effect of increasing people's ignorance.
Why can't those countries be included?
What was impure about the USSR?
WTF is this, name one socialist state without using any of the known socialist states on Earth?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?