The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Good point, eagleye13. Though I don’t suspect this escaped the attention of Morgan.

debeda

Airforceone

Since Trump got in Office I find it very difficult to even attempt a debate with Trump supporters. There’s no way to debate ideological difference with we deal with Right wingers trying to justify the Trump chain of lies. Then all they do is buy into his fabricated crisis using h**e and fear.

There is no way that you can debate a Trump supporter there denying the fact they got crushed in the mid terms. There denying and refuse to discuss they got clobbered in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan that gave Trump the White House. They refuse to talk about Red states like Georgia, Florida, Texas and the small margins of victory when T***p w*n these states by Double digits.

The American people are seeing with there own eyes. Where is the wall Mexico was going to pay for, where is the affordable healthcare for all American citizens, these trade agreements that Trump said he was a great negotiator and all we got was Trade wars and increase in goods and service and decrease in new car sales by 8%, increase in inflation.
All Trumps inner circle during the campaign all pleading guilty and talking with Muellar. 39 indictments, 7 pleaded guilty 2 convicted in court and Trump denying everything. Most of EO have ruled unconstitutional.

It’s hard to debate a Trump supporter they try and find justification by blaming everything on Clinton and Obama

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Have you ever thought about trying to make sense? That in itself could be a great help for you.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Comment Loc: California

AF1 is telling a great lie.

Morgan

Thank you, I wanted to take the time to try and clarify because this topic has been discussed several times. We are unique and a bit complicated, using what is needed for different issues, but these changes and amendments over the years all for good reasons and part of our growth, our constitution is a living document. What I am trying to prevent is people turning off of democracy and thinking it is our enemy or works against us. It is not Democracy versus a Republic, for us... it all works together.

Yes, I'm glad you brought up direct democracy also, which we do use but like you say in local v****g, in town halls and also if there is a referendum, bond or something of that sort. Thank you appreciated the exchnge.

zillaorange

You've NEVER given DEBATE A THOUGHT !!! I've brought it up SEVERAL TIMES, NOTHING FROM YOU !!!

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

I’m sure it has, this subject is very popular, among many different sites/forums, I understand after so many times, certain topics can get to be monotonous and/or mundane, so thank you for your offerings on this subject. At the the very least, it shows you care.

Indeed, and your words here reminded me of a James Madison passage, which I hope you find amusing, if not informative.

“The proposed Constitution… is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.” (The Federalist, p. 246.)

With respect to Article V, I agree, it is a living document. There are a few amendments that I don’t agree with though, such as 16,17, and some aspects of the 27th. But my opinion on those are irrelevant.

I can appreciate that. What I am trying to prevent is the slippery slope of democracy, into social democracy. Once we begin (actually already have) to accept majority rules on social issues it will spawn resentment and strife amongst the e*****rate. Once social democracy advocates realize that their rights end where my nose begins, order will return.

Morgan, I too, enjoyed our exchange, as well as with a few others, so, thank you! It sure beats a debate/discussion where one person says: “no! it’s this way! because I said!!” Without offering any support for their position. I would like to leave you with this passage from an essay; written by; Clarence Carson (1926-2003) he was an historian who taught at Eaton College, Grove City College, and Hillsdale College. Among his many works is the six-volume A Basic History of the United States.

“If there was one principle upon which the Founders were agreed more than any other it was that of the separation of powers. Montesquieu had taught them that it was a requisite of good government. Both they and Montesquieu knew the separation of powers in principle from the British example. State governments already incorporated the principle, however imperfectly. Once it was decided that the power to coerce individuals would be lodged in the United States government there was little doubt that a system of checks and balances must be located in the system. If the individual could be coerced by it then the government must be restrained by checks and balances.

For this to be done, there must be several branches to limit one another. The branches, as constituted, made it a mixed government. This idea is not so well known anymore, for it comes from classical theory, which no longer is the basis of our studies as it was for the Founders. The idea is that there are three possible pure modes of rule: they are, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. In this sense, neither the United States nor the states have a pure form of government; they are, instead, mixed. In the United States government, the President is based on the monarchical principle, the Senate the aristocratic, and the House the democratic (both because it has more members and is directly elected). It was not monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, but rather drawn from principles of each of them as a form, i.e., from rule by one, rule by a few, and rule by the many.

The Founders had considerable difficulty devising a mixed government from a constituency which contained no fixed classes. As they saw it, it was very important that each of the branches be distinct from the other in the manner of its se******n. A mixed government was desirable, in the first place, because there were differing functions of government which could best be entrusted to one, to a few, or to many. But, if the functions were best performed in this way, the division should not be watered down by having all the branches chosen by the same e*****rate. Perhaps it would be most accurate to say that they partially solved the problem. The members of the House were directly elected, and the number of them apportioned according to population. The Senate was to be elected by the state legislatures. This was natural enough and did base the choice on two different realities. But they never hit upon any comparable reality from which the President could be chosen. Having him elected by an e*******l college was an artificial expedient which, while it did give him an independent basis of se******n, did not provide him with one that was organic to the country.”

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"For this to be done, there must be several branches to limit one another. The branches, as constituted, made it a mixed government. This idea is not so well known anymore, for it comes from classical theory, which no longer is the basis of our studies as it was for the Founders. The idea is that there are three possible pure modes of rule: they are, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. In this sense, neither the United States nor the states have a pure form of government; they are, instead, mixed. In the United States government, the President is based on the monarchical principle, the Senate the aristocratic, and the House the democratic (both because it has more members and is directly elected). It was not monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, but rather drawn from principles of each of them as a form, i.e., from rule by one, rule by a few, and rule by the many.

The Founders had considerable difficulty devising a mixed government from a constituency which contained no fixed classes. As they saw it, it was very important that each of the branches be distinct from the other in the manner of its se******n. " - The Critical Critic

It took 11 years for the founders to write and pass the constitution.
Much thought was given to its design.
AND the difficulty to change it. By use of AMENDMENTS.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Agreed. Attaining a super-majority to initiate, debate, and pass an amendment is a very difficult thing to accomplish. (By design )

debeda

You know, Critic, I have learned more from your posts on this topic than I have since either pennylynn or Mary Jane or ? did a comprehensive yet simple explanation of the e*******l college. Ive noted several fine points to look up and verify. That being said, THANKS

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Debeda, you’ll never know how good that makes me feel. You are very welcome! Thank you.