Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Sorry... I got to wet shirt and sort of blacked out a bit.... Most ungentlemanly thoughts ... Darned toxic masculinity

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Yeah, I do. I try not to be too cynical, as I am an optimist at heart. I have an abiding faith in the American people and system. I look around and see, despite the political divide, most Americans really just go about their daily lives and don't let politics rule their lives. I am a liberal in a conservative family but we still love each other and are able to talk politics in a civil manner. Party on America.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Now thats a democracy trait for sure...(masculinity rules, lololol) ....

You need to go nite, nite now....lololol

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I know... Just laying in bed watching her sleep... Can't seem to close my eyes..

Soon

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

In another thread Critical Critic proficiently answers your question . Impressed I am with it I am taking the liberty of reposting our discussion ..
Long but well worth the read~~
The Critical Critic wrote:
One more time, Morgan. Be sure to let me know when you have digested this, then we can move on to the definition of a republic.

Let’s begin:

A Democracy

”The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the e*****rate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority v**e (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar v**e of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors nor the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The t***h is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in t***h in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period."

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection wh**ever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts nor any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect e******y in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.”

This definition has stood for decades, there isn’t a single scholar on government that has contested this definition. Try if you wish...

Lindajoy wrote:
Concise and to the point...Well done👏🏻👏🏻

The Federalist Papers should have to be read by any whom want to dissect the meaning of the Constituion, Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence...

Madison’s vision in majority rule v. minority rights impacted the very foundation of the growth of states to follow and argued that the large size of the country would actually make it more difficult for factions to gain control over others. Meaning while the influence of factious leaders may impact one state it will be unable to spread a general conf**gration through the other States...

We see this going on right now within each states direction or “ political scope” of our Republic...None of it favorable to the people but to this over bloated criminal government we have allowed to flourish...

Anyway I will close with something Madison said that I have always remembered..

“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires...”

Again, loved reading your well thought out composed reply, Mr. Critical Critic...Bravo...

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Is it any wonder~~ she is an eye catcher for sure!! Snuggle up to her and listen to her breathing you’ll be out in a minute...😊

Airforceone

Yes states should have there own e******n laws but when it comes to National e******ns for Representatives, Senators and p**********l elected to the US Congress there should be strict v**er laws. There’s no reason to have different v***r r**********n for each state. The only reason I am saying that is because these states eliminate and make it difficult for certain classes of people.

To say that Socialism and Marxism are a employ Democratic agenda is false. How about Republican socialism. We take tax payer funds to pay Oul, Gas and corporate farm subsidies, we created loopholes in our tax laws that creates a loss of federal funds where the middle class picks up the cost for our social programs that benefits the corporation in this country. We just gave the corporate elite a great big tax cut which now increases our deficit create a wider gap in income an e******y. So that tax cut is a tax payer funded break for the wealthy is this not socialism. When republicans use $850 billion and only 40% is actually used for defense and the remainder is give to the private sector that is socialism. So it’s not just democrats it republican funded programs. That’s where the misinformation Avenue gets abused but Republicans have control the narrative of capitalism versus socialism.

So I want you to give me the difinition of socialism and then apply it to republican and democratic programs in this country.

I am trying to accomplish one thing with your new topic and I was delighted when you asked that question on democracy. Because it does open up a debate on how to create a democracy and keeping in mind to have a strong democracy we also have to have a strong economy when all people have advantages its a win win if corporations prosper along with the middle class and we give the poor a path out of poverty.

I did take offense when you made the comment that democrats support socialism, Marxism but in no way does anybody in this country support c*******m.

Republicans and democratic support positive portions of socialism, and Marxism to deny this then is just wrong.

Let’s open this debate and just be realistic about Capitalism, Socialism and Marxism and then positive portions of each agenda.

I have asked every right wing blogger on OPP to give me the difinition of socialism most have no idea there is 5 different types of socialism. We have democratic socialism we have Republican socialism in this country.

Socialism in its simplest form. (WHEN YOU TAKE TAX PAYER FUNDS AND USE THESE FUNDS THAT GET PAID TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR THATS SOCIALISM)

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Great Britain has a Democracy, we have a Representative Republic that operates within ( supposed to anyway ) Democratic principles.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

LOL... And so you see where I got this week's Definitions term from...

CC and I have been PMing about this very topic... I look forward to some of his future threads on it... There is so much for me to learn about the founding of the US...

Good add to the tnread though....

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Fell asleep with her in my arms... Wonderfully restful.... Until she kicked me... Takes after her mother... l

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Another excellent reply...

I should make you aware that I have a rule Which prevents me from Debating on my Definitions threads...

But I can ask questions

What would you say is the fairest form of v***r r**********n for federal e******ns?

(and sorry about the delay... Different time zones)

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Excellent distinction...

Thanks for the contribution

Airforceone

I am not sure how to answer that question. I have a few ideas kicked around but not sure how the federal government would manage it.

Like automatic v***r r**********n when you are born in this country. But now how do we manage legal immigrants that get there citizenship.

I have looked the number of polls per capita and more polling places make it easy to v**e.

I have looked at national e******ns instead of having v****g on a Tuesday change it to Saturday. Or make national E******n Day a holiday.

Come up with a standard as for early v****g.


I just din’t know How all this will play out.
I read the Bush 43 report which Bush started an investigation on i******s v****g. He spent $364 million on a 5 year investigation and he shut it down because they nothing in the line of i******s there 6 states that did investigations and found nothing even remotely on i******s v****g. The biggest area they found were felons released from jail and still on probation. They assumed they could v**e, but were given a b****t but these people were American citizens.

I would like to see congress propose e******n laws on the national level and go thru the proper process in Congress and have the committee meetings and call in the career professionals and listen to there ideas who to set up the law.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Morning there Airforceone...

Hope you are having a fine day...

Making e******n day a holiday is an excellent idea... And it would help to remind people to v**e...

More polling stations also sounds like a simple and workable idea....

Your last suggestion makes a lot of sense as well... It should also appeal to anyone who supports the rule of law... Fingers crossed, but not holding my breath...