Is the United States a Republic, but not a Democracy?

[Moot]

well to bad this time..... if you refuse to read it and recognize the truth as it posted, then remain in the dark.

because as i have said to you before you have not read the constitution or the federalist, and your are not going to, and remain not able to understand

Stop trying to make it personal and answer the question.

Who voted for the state legislature that appointed the US senators, Ernst?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Not all bills for raising revenue are tax related. The senate can originate and propose revenue bills that are not tax related...such as leasing and selling off federal lands and property. Or the raising of revenue to support a program. Or the confiscation of estates for unpaid debt and selling it off. The revenue still goes to the treasury.

You know how many of us in this forum talk about the government working outside the limitations set for it?

Thanks for illustrating that point more capably than you have demonstrated any other point on this forum.

 

[Master PO]

Stop trying to make it personal and answer the question.

Who voted for the state legislature that appointed the US senators, Ernst?

moot you jumped into this thread first stating senators are not appointed, and you were found wrong...why? .......because you did not bother to read the thread talking about pre17th

then second you stated senators had power of revenue, and you were found to be wrong...... because? ...............you were shown the constitution stating that they did not have such power.

third you continued to try to make the point senators, pre17th are of the people, and you have been shown to be wrong on that......how?.....because you have been shown the federalist stating what the purpose of the senate is to represent the state legislatures, and to secure the state powers from the federal power usurpation of them.


to answer your question: the people electing the states legislatures, are STATE ELECTIONS, they are not FEDERAL ELECTIONS.....federal elections concern federal powers

the constitution makes it clear the people will be represented by the house, and the senate will represent the state legislatures and their powers.

time and time i have dealt with you and you refuse to read our founding documents, and instead i had to educate you on it and give you my time in doing it.

now if you wish to remain in the dark on our founding documents, and continue to spout non sense which is not true, go ahead because it will only deal you more ridiculing in the lower bowls of you know where.

your problem is that you are part of an ideology of the left, and there anything which does not fit into that ideology you cannot deal with, just like some people on the right cannot deal with things which do not fit theirs.

when you get over the right wing /left wing war,, and can clear your head, and look at facts of our founding, it will open you eyes and you will see clearly.

 

[Moot]

You know how many of us in this forum talk about the government working outside the limitations set for it?

Thanks for illustrating that point more capably than you have demonstrated any other point on this forum.

I was just stating what is, not what I wish it was. Not everything is about your emotions.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I was just stating what is, not what I wish it was. Not everything is about your emotions.

No emotional content whatsoever. I was making a point, actually you were making the point without meaning to do so. The point is even the government doesn't operate under the rules set for it.

What we are and are not now, differs greatly from how the government was originally intended to be ran.

 

[Moot]

moot you jumped into this thread first stating senators are not appointed, and you were found wrong...why? .......because you did not bother to read the thread talking about pre17th

Yes, and if you were paying attention you'd have noticed that's when I started saying "appointed". But apparently, you were too busy shouting to notice.

then second you stated senators had power of revenue, and you were found to be wrong...... because? ...............you were shown the constitution stating that they did not have such power.

What you posted did not support what you originally claimed...

the senate has no power of revenue, how is it going to make collective laws?

And then you posted Article 1, section 7....

article 1 section 7

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

It says the senate has the power to concur or propose amendments for raising revenue. The senate can amend the house bill...or propose/replace it with one it's own....and then send it back to the house for a vote. That's a power of revenue and your own evidence has proven you wrong, Ernst.

third you continued to try to make the point senators, pre17th are of the people, and you have been shown to be wrong on that......how?.....because you have been shown the federalist stating what the purpose of the senate is, and it is to represent the state legislatures, and to secure the state powers from the federal power usurpation of them.

After you said that you talking about prior to the 17th amendment...I decided to play along and say they were "appointed" and my question reflects that by asking you...

Who elected the state legislation that "appointed" the US senators?


It's the fifth time I've asked and still waiting for your answer.

to answer your question: the people electing the states legislatures, are STATE ELECTIONS, they are not FEDERAL ELECTIONS.....federal elections concern federal powers

But you're entire spiel seems to be built on the premise that the people have no say in federal elections. And yet, they directly elect the legislature that appointed US senators.

the constitution makes it clear the people will be represented by the house, and the senate will represent the state legislatures and their powers.

The people directly elect the state legislatures that chose/appoint the US senators. By amending the constitution and allowing the people to directly elect their US senators helps makes them more accountable to the people instead of the state.

time and time i have dealt with you and you refuse to read our founding documents, and instead i had to educate you on it and give you my time in doing it.

I remember schooling you on the term "collective". Funny how you stopped making the same mistake that you were before I schooled you.

now if you wish to remain in the dark on our founding documents, and continue to spout non sense which is not true, go ahead because it will only deal you more ridiculing in the lower bowls of you know where.

your problem is that you are part of an ideology of the left, and there anything which does not fit into that ideology you cannot deal with, just like some people on the right cannot deal with things which do not fit theirs.

when you get over the right wing /left wing war,, and can clear your head, and look at facts of our founding, it will open you eyes and you will see clearly.

Stop trying to make it personal, Ernst. It's cowardly and shows weakness in your logic. Tearing people down to your level doesn't raise your own.

 

[Moot]

No emotional content whatsoever. I was making a point, actually you were making the point without meaning to do so. The point is even the government doesn't operate under the rules set for it.

What we are and are not now, differs greatly from how the government was originally intended to be ran.

That's another argument for another day. It seems Ernst is only interested in discussing how it was before the 17th amendment...not how it is now.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That's another argument for another day. It seems Ernst is only interested in discussing how it was before the 17th amendment...not how it is now.

Don't attempt to play the emotional argument, that's a poor argument as diversion. Carry on.

 

[Moot]

Don't attempt to play the emotional argument, that's a poor argument as diversion. Carry on.

Don't attempt to doublespeak, either.

 

[Master PO]

Yes, and if you were paying attention you'd have noticed that's when I started saying "appointed". But apparently, you were too busy shouting to notice.

What you posted did not support what you originally claimed...



And then you posted Article 1, section 7....


It says the senate has the power to concur or propose amendments for raising revenue. The senate can amend the house bill...or propose/replace it with one it's own....and then send it back to the house for a vote. That's a power of revenue and your own evidence has proven you wrong, Ernst.




After you said that you talking about prior to the 17th amendment...I decided to play along and say they were "appointed" and my question reflects that by asking you...

Who elected the state legislation that "appointed" the US senators?


It's the fifth time I've asked and still waiting for your answer.



But you're entire spiel seems to be built on the premise that the people have no say in federal elections. And yet, they directly elect the legislature that appointed US senators.



The people directly elect the state legislatures that chose/appoint the US senators. By amending the constitution and allowing the people to directly elect their US senators helps makes them more accountable to the people instead of the state.



I remember schooling you on the term "collective". Funny how you stopped making the same mistake that you were before I schooled you.


Stop trying to make it personal, Ernst. It's cowardly and shows weakness in your logic. Tearing people down to your level doesn't raise your own.

i am going to do what you do, i don't read long draw out replies.

you started speaking and did not know what you were talking about, and no the senate has no power of revenue because it represents the states, and the states cannot spend the people's money, only the representatives of the people can that...the house has the power of the purse.


Records of the Federal Convention

[1:233; Madison, 13 June]

Mr. Gerry. moved to restrain the Senatorial branch from originating money bills. The other branch was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings. If the Senate should be allowed to originate such bills, they wd. repeat the experiment, till chance should furnish a sett of representatives in the other branch who will fall into their snares.


when you start reading the founding documents and understand them , then you can challenge me effectively

 

[Moot]

i am going to do what you do, i don't read long draw out replies.

you started speaking and did not know what you were talking about, and no the senate has no power of revenue because it represents the states, and the states cannot spend the people's money, only the representatives of the people can that...the house has the power of the purse.


Records of the Federal Convention

[1:233; Madison, 13 June]

Mr. Gerry. moved to restrain the Senatorial branch from originating money bills. The other branch was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings. If the Senate should be allowed to originate such bills, they wd. repeat the experiment, till chance should furnish a sett of representatives in the other branch who will fall into their snares.


when you start reading the founding documents and understand it , then you can challenge me on it effectively

I'm feeling generous and will give you time to read my post before responding again.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Don't attempt to doublespeak, either.

All you are doing is illustrating why someone shouldn't ever give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Moot]

All you are doing is illustrating why someone shouldn't ever give you the benefit of the doubt.

Well, as you know, your opinion doesn't hold much weight.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Well, as you know, your opinion doesn't hold much weight.

Yours holds much, all weighing down the side of error.

 

[Moot]

Yours holds much, all weighing down the side of error.

Prove it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Prove it.

Ernst already did.

 

[Moot]

Ernst already did.

Again, your opinion holds no weight.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Again, your opinion holds no weight.

Then why are you responding? :roll::lamo

 

[James972]

The USA is certainly a "Republic" since the term can apply to virtually any country that, no matter how tenuously, can make the case that it is mostly about the "The People." The USA is a democracy only in the sense that the people vote and thus wield a fair amount of power. Democrats, though, have subverted the democratic element by encouraging everyone to vote no matter how unqualified despite the Constitution saying that only qualified intelligent people can vote and hold office.

 

[Moot]

Then why are you responding? :roll::lamo

Because my opinion holds weight. lol

 

[Master PO]

The USA is certainly a "Republic" since the term can apply to virtually any country that, no matter how tenuously, can make the case that it is mostly about the "The People." The USA is a democracy only in the sense that the people vote and thus wield a fair amount of power. Democrats, though, have subverted the democratic element by encouraging everyone to vote no matter how unqualified despite the Constitution saying that only qualified intelligent people can vote and hold office.

to the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron

the constitution does not say that intelligent people can vote or hold office

 

[Moot]

The USA is certainly a "Republic" since the term can apply to virtually any country that, no matter how tenuously, can make the case that it is mostly about the "The People." The USA is a democracy only in the sense that the people vote and thus wield a fair amount of power. Democrats, though, have subverted the democratic element by encouraging everyone to vote no matter how unqualified despite the Constitution saying that only qualified intelligent people can vote and hold office.

"The true principle of a republic is that the people should choose whom they please to govern them" - Alexander Hamilton

Most of the founders believed that every citizen that paid taxes had a right to vote for their representatives in government. In fact, it was one of the main tenets of the revolution and the basis for the constitution. So where does the constitution say that on "qualified intelligent people can vote and hold office?" Obviously, that is not true just judging by the crop of republican candidates currently running for office.

 

[OpportunityCost]

"The true principle of a republic is that the people should choose whom they please to govern them" - Alexander Hamilton

Most of the founders believed that every citizen that paid taxes had a right to vote for their representatives in government. In fact, it was one of the main tenets of the revolution and the basis for the constitution. So where does the constitution say that on "qualified intelligent people can vote and hold office?" Obviously, that is not true just judging by the crop of republican candidates currently running for office.

Bear with me, could you read the paragraph directly under that in the Searchlight? It deals with the rejection of recalls and pure democracy.

 

[Master PO]

Bear with me, could you read the paragraph directly under that in the Searchlight? It deals with the rejection of recalls and pure democracy.

notice in the first para, it states that congress shall be divided into separate houses and controlled by checks and balances and that ABOVE ALL vigilance and weight of the state governments

proving the point that the senate in the hands of the state legislatures is the guardian of the constitution, and that they keep the federal government in check

 

[James972]

"

Most of the founders believed that every citizen that paid taxes had a right to vote for their representatives in government.

great, so if we applied that today half the electorate would gone and we'd be better off for it. Also, Constitution says a certain age must be reached to vote and hold office. The idea being that young often means stupid or inexperienced. If children can't vote or hold office then neither should adults as dumb as children. Democrats treasonously subverted our Founders democracy and gave us the mob rule that our genius founders so feared.