Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Ireland recovering from Theocracy.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View Post"The Republic of Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to legalise same-sex marriage in a historic referendum. More than 62% voted in favour of amending the country's constitution to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
It is the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage through a popular vote.
Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny said it was a "small country with a big message for equality" around the world.
The referendum was held 22 years after homosexual acts were decriminalised in the Republic of Ireland."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32858501
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIt seems that Sam is aghast that anyone is against dumbing down Americans about this.
Keep 'em ignorant so they don't know what is constitutional and what isn't.
What I observe happening sometimes in the US is that the general populace (who have no legal training and no great amount of intelligence and mental framework for actually understanding the subtleties of the processes by which courts set precedents and reach constitution decisions) delude themselves into believing that they personally have the mental skills to go around pronouncing what is • Edited by a Moderator • and what isn't. And subsequently instead of paying any attention to what the law is, they will act as if their own beliefs about the implications of the constitution have the force of law. It seems to me you'd be much better off actually educating people about what laws actually say and encouraging people to actually obey them, than you would giving encouragement to stupid people to draw their own conclusions about what they feel ought to be legal based on their own personal interpretation of the constitution.Last edited by mossrose; 05-25-2015, 02:07 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYeah!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostDemocracy is a dictatorship.
Our founding fathers had every opportunity to create a democracy but did not choose to do so. Why? Because they were utterly repulsed by the idea recognizing it for what it is.
Let's take a quick peek at what some of them had to say about it shall we
In the same document Madison, regarded as the "Father of the Constitution" as well as author of and biggest supporter of our Bill of Rights, stated that in a pure democracy "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” It is in essence mob rule.
And from his father...
In his highly influential Thoughts on Government stated unequivocally that "There is no good government but what is republican" and that was the form of government that was established.After the Conventional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been wrought to which he famously answered: "A republic, if you can keep it."
The word "democracy” appears absolutely nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution – the two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican form of government."[1]
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The Electoral College and Senate representation come to mind. The Bill of Rights enumerates individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is totally undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor.
Instead of a democracy which they viewed as merely another form of tyranny our founders gave us a republic, with a representative form of government. Democracy is rule by majority or mob rule (the point of the two wolves and a sheep voting on what's going to be had for dinner remark I posted earlier), whereas a representative Republic is based upon the rule of law -- the Constitution.
The latter recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals (the power of the majority is limited by a written constitution which safeguards the God-given inalienable rights of minority groups and individuals alike) while the former is only concerned with group wants at any given moment. As I said -- mob rule or maybe a "mobocracy."
The great American author James Fenimore Cooper put it another way:
In closing I'll note that since the formation of our nation no American president ever referred to the U.S. as a democracy until Woodrow Wilson misapplied the term during WWI. Sadly, today it has become common to use the term democracy in describing our form of government including by presidents and other top elected officials from both major political parties.
Maybe things would be different if every elected official was required to memorize what the founding fathers had to say or even how the U.S. Department of War (superseded by the U. S. Department of Defense) training manual (No. 2000-25), published in 1928, which every American soldier once carried, defined Democracy.:
And thus ends today's rant
1. Think of it this way, does our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag say "to the democracy for which it stands"? Or do we sing the “Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”?
Leave a comment:
-
Three different conservatives had expressed various objections to democracy in this thread alone at the point I commented. I've also seen such a view regularly expressed in other threads by conservative posters in this forum. Anti-democratic sentiment among conservatives here seems quite widespread.
Amusingly a few posters here seem to have a fair level of insecurity about their own anti-democratic views though and project them onto other people, and so accuse me and/or the left in general of being anti-democratic, while themselves espousing anti-democratic views.
The whole "the US is a republic not a democracy" game is completely disingenuous. It has democratic elections, hence democracy. I do think that their poorly conceived constitution makes it much worse though. Every other country that has tried copying the US's model has failed, and anyone who has been watching US politics recently and watched the government shutdown while eating popcorn, can hardly say that the US system is particularly functional.
My own country has been a democracy now for 160 years.* So I find reading through rogue's quote-gallery of the US founding fathers quite entertaining - the complete idiocy and factual falsity of their quotes is hilarious. In their defense, they were, of course, writing at a time where democracy hadn't been widely used as a form of government. So they couldn't have known what we know now - that democracies work perfectly fine for centuries.
The irony of all this, in light of this thread topic - same sex marriage - is that the US Supreme Court is widely expected to be about to declare that the US constitution implicitly endorses same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. So all the constitutional fetishists out there who hate letting the people decide things by popular vote and would much much rather an unelected and unaccountable judiciary (who in the US are appointed with the intention of bias, by partisan presidents, after the random-roulette of death strikes down a previous appointee) get to impose their whims on the populace... will doubtless be celebrating... right? After all Rogue, isn't this what you wanted? You've got your Republic as opposed to a Democracy, so you get to have those judges telling you that you have to have same-sex marriage instead of the people being allowed to get a say in it. What an awesome system... I'm sure it's the envy of the world... LOL.
I would also point out that Jefferson was famously horrified when the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant themselves the power to strike down federal laws as 'unconstitutional'. He had apparently never conceived of that being a possibility. In his mind the constitution was never supposed to be a weapon for the judiciary to be able to use against the laws passed by democratically elected representatives:
Jefferson's response to Marbury v Madison:
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIn fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The Electoral College and Senate representation come to mind.
* Yes, we technically have a monarch (the Queen of England), who in practice wields no power whatsoever. We are for all intents and purposes a complete democracy, and have no constitution.Last edited by Starlight; 05-24-2015, 12:15 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostMy response was to an idiot who thinks that opposition to Democracy is tantamount to wanting a dictatorship. It was to pure Democracies that the objections were being raised. Apparently he didn't know what you insist "we all know."
By all means, criticize the glib bifurcation between "democracy" (by which we all are meaning "democratic republic") and dictatorship. But let's end the democracy/republic stuff. It's not relevant and it's based on a willful oversimplification of an opponent's use of the term while allowing the colloquial sense to pass unscathed other times.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostUgh. Again.
If people are going to be complaining about the consequences of a democracy when a democratic Republic like the USA or Ireland passes measures by popular vote, why is it that people who respond using that loose definition of "democracy" (which we virtually always use when describing America!) get rants about the difference between Republics and Democracies?
We all know the difference between a constitutional democratic republic and a pure democracy. We don't need people pointing out the difference every time — especially in response to someone who is just going along with earlier posters' colloquial use.
And thus ends my rant for today.
And I think that the "loose definition of "democracy" (which we virtually always use when describing America!)" is at the root of many of our political problems and misunderstandings. How often have you heard misinformed folks declare "majority rules"?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostDon't recall saying otherwise, do you? Besides, it was only one person that seemed to have a problem with it, not conservatives as a whole. What is that thing called again when you try to broad brush an entire group of people, based upon what a few people say?
Personally, I'm just ready for the whole "Well, we're a republic not a democracy" counterpoint to go away. It's never been applicable in all the times I've seen it used on this board. No one has argued for a pure democracy or extolled the virtues of pure majority rule.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostAs is Ireland.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostDemocracy is a dictatorship.
Our founding fathers had every opportunity to create a democracy but did not choose to do so. Why? Because they were utterly repulsed by the idea recognizing it for what it is.
Let's take a quick peek at what some of them had to say about it shall we
In the same document Madison, regarded as the "Father of the Constitution" as well as author of and biggest supporter of our Bill of Rights, stated that in a pure democracy "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” It is in essence mob rule.
And from his father...
In his highly influential Thoughts on Government stated unequivocally that "There is no good government but what is republican" and that was the form of government that was established.After the Conventional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been wrought to which he famously answered: "A republic, if you can keep it."
The word "democracy” appears absolutely nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution – the two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican form of government."[1]
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The Electoral College and Senate representation come to mind. The Bill of Rights enumerates individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is totally undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor.
Instead of a democracy which they viewed as merely another form of tyranny our founders gave us a republic, with a representative form of government. Democracy is rule by majority or mob rule (the point of the two wolves and a sheep voting on what's going to be had for dinner remark I posted earlier), whereas a representative Republic is based upon the rule of law -- the Constitution.
The latter recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals (the power of the majority is limited by a written constitution which safeguards the God-given inalienable rights of minority groups and individuals alike) while the former is only concerned with group wants at any given moment. As I said -- mob rule or maybe a "mobocracy."
The great American author James Fenimore Cooper put it another way:
In closing I'll note that since the formation of our nation no American president ever referred to the U.S. as a democracy until Woodrow Wilson misapplied the term during WWI. Sadly, today it has become common to use the term democracy in describing our form of government including by presidents and other top elected officials from both major political parties.
Maybe things would be different if every elected official was required to memorize what the founding fathers had to say or even how the U.S. Department of War (superseded by the U. S. Department of Defense) training manual (No. 2000-25), published in 1928, which every American soldier once carried, defined Democracy.:
And thus ends today's rant
1. Think of it this way, does our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag say "to the democracy for which it stands"? Or do we sing the “Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”?
Ugh. Again.
If people are going to be complaining about the consequences of a democracy when a democratic Republic like the USA or Ireland passes measures by popular vote, why is it that people who respond using that loose definition of "democracy" (which we virtually always use when describing America!) get rants about the difference between Republics and Democracies?
We all know the difference between a constitutional democratic republic and a pure democracy. We don't need people pointing out the difference every time — especially in response to someone who is just going along with earlier posters' colloquial use.
And thus ends my rant for today.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI'm amused by how many of the conservatives here appear to fundamentally dislike democracy and would apparently much rather have some sort of dictatorship.
Our founding fathers had every opportunity to create a democracy but did not choose to do so. Why? Because they were utterly repulsed by the idea recognizing it for what it is.
Let's take a quick peek at what some of them had to say about it shall we
In the same document Madison, regarded as the "Father of the Constitution" as well as author of and biggest supporter of our Bill of Rights, stated that in a pure democracy "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” It is in essence mob rule.
And from his father...
In his highly influential Thoughts on Government stated unequivocally that "There is no good government but what is republican" and that was the form of government that was established.After the Conventional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been wrought to which he famously answered: "A republic, if you can keep it."
The word "democracy” appears absolutely nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution – the two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican form of government."[1]
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The Electoral College and Senate representation come to mind. The Bill of Rights enumerates individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is totally undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor.
Instead of a democracy which they viewed as merely another form of tyranny our founders gave us a republic, with a representative form of government. Democracy is rule by majority or mob rule (the point of the two wolves and a sheep voting on what's going to be had for dinner remark I posted earlier), whereas a representative Republic is based upon the rule of law -- the Constitution.
The latter recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals (the power of the majority is limited by a written constitution which safeguards the God-given inalienable rights of minority groups and individuals alike) while the former is only concerned with group wants at any given moment. As I said -- mob rule or maybe a "mobocracy."
The great American author James Fenimore Cooper put it another way:
In closing I'll note that since the formation of our nation no American president ever referred to the U.S. as a democracy until Woodrow Wilson misapplied the term during WWI. Sadly, today it has become common to use the term democracy in describing our form of government including by presidents and other top elected officials from both major political parties.
Maybe things would be different if every elected official was required to memorize what the founding fathers had to say or even how the U.S. Department of War (superseded by the U. S. Department of Defense) training manual (No. 2000-25), published in 1928, which every American soldier once carried, defined Democracy.:
And thus ends today's rant
1. Think of it this way, does our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag say "to the democracy for which it stands"? Or do we sing the “Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI'm amused by how many of the conservatives here appear to fundamentally dislike democracy and would apparently much rather have some sort of dictatorship.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostLet's be honest, whether Iran could be accurately portrayed as right wing is debatable (their politics is pretty much outside of both left and right wing ideology). But let's just say for giggles that you are right, at least to date they still pale in comparison to what the far left wing Republics like Mao's People's Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (especially under Stalin) and even to a much lesser extent the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have brought to us.
Point being: one-party authoritarian governments tend to be a bit more awful than democratic governments and voting to allow gay people to get married is pretty low on the "Failures of Good Governance" list.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, 04-21-2024, 01:11 PM
|
68 responses
410 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 02:58 AM | ||
Started by seer, 04-19-2024, 02:09 PM
|
10 responses
149 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 06:09 AM
|
||
Started by seanD, 04-19-2024, 01:25 PM
|
2 responses
57 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 04:09 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 04-19-2024, 08:53 AM
|
21 responses
185 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
Today, 02:15 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
|
37 responses
270 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 07:47 PM
|
Leave a comment: