slap this man.
Is the US a real democracy?
- Thread starter Joaqo
- Start date
slap this man.
its called representative government, if it was a pure democracy "roe v. wade" would have been voted on, but ...it wasn't. Left up to the supreme court(our representative). gore would have won in 2000.........but hey there is this thing called "the electorial college". the pledge of allegiance goes something like this ............I pledge allegiance to the republic, for which it stands.
I thought the USA was considered a constitutional democratic republic. So in a way it's still sort of a democracy. It's just that greed, corruption, the lust for power, and evil have warped every political system that humanity has ever had and we feel the effects of that just like everywhere else in the world.
The next president will probably be better than Bush, but that's only because it would be near impossible to be as bad as he was.
The next president will probably be better than Bush, but that's only because it would be near impossible to be as bad as he was.
Definitely not ...
The US established the defacto standard, based on many other trial'n errors of other attempts, that the simple majority of people have the least power. Our ideas were not even remotely original, but based on countless English, French and other scholars, prior other, Democratic-Republic attempts, etc...
Those who wield the least power make the laws by simple majority, in the Legislative.
Those who wield the most power, the Judicial, interpret the laws to ensure they do not violate the laws made by the original document or amendments by the least powerful in a supermajority.
But those who wield the least power can use a supermajority to override those with the most power.
The remaining branch is the Executive. The Executive actually is quite limited in what he/she can do. But because he/she is often between both the Legislative and Judicial, and is a single entity in the US, he/she gets the most focus. Most American's don't realize the states actually still appoint the President, it's only in the latter half of this country's existence have most states made it popular vote of the people in their state.
Hence why the Executive selection in the US has always been about the balance of the states rights against the federal. I only wish more was like that in general, as too many Americans assume it's "good" that the federal can override the states. Misappropriation of funds (don't get me started), people (e.g., National Guardsmen/women, who actually answer to state governors), etc... are just some of the reasons I want states defining the Executive, not a simple majority where one state can obliterate the votes of a dozen other states (much less a single city or two in a state can obliterate the rest).
We have a separate Senate from our House of Representatives for the same reasons as well.
Ironically enough, this is how it's always been -- the Legislative and Judicial not getting along with the President at all. George Washington was the first and only President to even attempt to directly work with Congress on the floor of Congress -- and only once.
Whether we talk small states v. big states, city-states v. rural counties, minorities v. alleged majorities, states v. federal, big business v. small, etc... there's always been, and there will always be, politics. The beauty of the US is that no one branch can override any other.
Hell, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln were far more guilty of Constitutional violations than any President in the 20th or 21st Century. At the same time, they were also some of the most well-liked Presidents -- myself included on Jackson (sans how he handled Native Americans).
The US established the defacto standard, based on many other trial'n errors of other attempts, that the simple majority of people have the least power. Our ideas were not even remotely original, but based on countless English, French and other scholars, prior other, Democratic-Republic attempts, etc...
Those who wield the least power make the laws by simple majority, in the Legislative.
Those who wield the most power, the Judicial, interpret the laws to ensure they do not violate the laws made by the original document or amendments by the least powerful in a supermajority.
But those who wield the least power can use a supermajority to override those with the most power.
The remaining branch is the Executive. The Executive actually is quite limited in what he/she can do. But because he/she is often between both the Legislative and Judicial, and is a single entity in the US, he/she gets the most focus. Most American's don't realize the states actually still appoint the President, it's only in the latter half of this country's existence have most states made it popular vote of the people in their state.
Hence why the Executive selection in the US has always been about the balance of the states rights against the federal. I only wish more was like that in general, as too many Americans assume it's "good" that the federal can override the states. Misappropriation of funds (don't get me started), people (e.g., National Guardsmen/women, who actually answer to state governors), etc... are just some of the reasons I want states defining the Executive, not a simple majority where one state can obliterate the votes of a dozen other states (much less a single city or two in a state can obliterate the rest).
We have a separate Senate from our House of Representatives for the same reasons as well.
Ironically enough, this is how it's always been -- the Legislative and Judicial not getting along with the President at all. George Washington was the first and only President to even attempt to directly work with Congress on the floor of Congress -- and only once.
Whether we talk small states v. big states, city-states v. rural counties, minorities v. alleged majorities, states v. federal, big business v. small, etc... there's always been, and there will always be, politics. The beauty of the US is that no one branch can override any other.
Hell, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln were far more guilty of Constitutional violations than any President in the 20th or 21st Century. At the same time, they were also some of the most well-liked Presidents -- myself included on Jackson (sans how he handled Native Americans).
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
jedi007gotham
Closed Account
Right
the reason being that the founders (correctly in my view) believed a pure democracy was too unstable because it would always lead to oppression of the minority because the majority would always vote its best interests....with the system we have, however, the minority is protected.... that being said, however, I dont think its the court's job to create rights to protect etc. which are not directly in our constitutional text (think Carolene Products footnote 4) because the system already provides sufficient protection otherwise
youwanttoshagme
Closed Account
No your not, because I say so, and what I says go's.
If you don't like it, find some where else.
Lovingly signed,
youwanttoshagme,
(dictator of the world, dominant daddy of President G. W. Bush, underling to the High Emperor, Satan)
If you don't like it, find some where else.
Lovingly signed,
youwanttoshagme,
(dictator of the world, dominant daddy of President G. W. Bush, underling to the High Emperor, Satan)
Similar threads
