Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

Socialism is an economic system. It is the economic system of c*******m. C*******m is a political system that enforces socialism. Socialism is difficult to have in a democracy. Limited capitalism works best in democracy

Radiance3

=================
Capitalism is the engine of economic growth of all advanced and civilized countries. The United States was born in a constitutional republic with capitalism as the basic structure of its inherent economic growth which transcends to the most powerful and richest country in the world after the world war.

Our birth of freedom goes along with the freedom to have free market economy. We invent, innovate, create, produce, manufacture. Thus putting our country a shining city up on a hill. We lead. And we must continue this by electing leaders who have the best knowledge on our economic prosperity, security, and overall welfare and stability of the American people. President Trump is genius in capitalism and I am sure, he will restore our country back to prosperity after the upset of the C****av***s. We will prevail. May God bless America and president Trump.

steve66613

And, a democracy supports and preserves the REPUBLIC.

Radiance3

==============
The Founders choice, a republic if you can keep it.
[i]We have a constitutional republic as Hamilton, Madison stated if what government we will have. "A Republic is you can keep it.
Our Founding Fathers created our Constitutional Republic.
A Republic, If We Can Keep It
The government set up by James Madison and the other Founders requires a virtuous public and virtuous leaders—or the whole system will fail.

He illustrated his point with a founding-era episode involving the nation’s first chief justice, John Jay. After Jay committed to joining Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in writing essays in defense of the proposed constitution, Jay was seriously wounded by a mob of New Yorkers who had been whipped into a frenzy by rumors of grave robberies. Jay’s wounds derailed his involvement in our nation’s greatest work of political philosophy, The Federalist Papers. “It is sadly ironic,” Roberts wrote, “that John Jay’s efforts to educate his fellow citizens about the Framers’ plan of government fell victim to a rock thrown by a r****r motivated by a rumor.”

The connection between Jay’s day and ours is clear: “In our age,” Roberts wrote, “when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale,” there is even greater danger that political passions can turn us against one another, or against constitutional government itself. He emphasized judges’ particular role as “a key source of national unity and stability,” but his deeper point was that those values are needed among more than just judges.

The Battle for the Constitution
A special project on the constitutional debates in American life,

His letter invoked Jay, Hamilton, Madison, and John Marshall, but his ideas called to mind another Founding Father: Benjamin Franklin, who, on leaving the constitutional convention of 1787, supposedly told a curious passerby that the Framers had produced “a republic, if you can keep it.”

What does it take to “keep a republic”? Nearly two and a half centuries into this experiment in self-governance, Americans tend to think that they keep their republic by relying on constitutional structure: separated powers, federalism, checks and balances. But constitutional structure, like any structure, does not maintain itself. Each generation has to maintain its institutions and repair any damage that its predecessors inflicted or allowed. This task begins with civic education, so that Americans know how their government works, and thus what to expect from their constitutional institutions.

Yet civic education alone, though necessary, is not sufficient. For civic education to take root and produce its desired fruit, the people themselves must have certain qualities of self-restraint, goodwill, and moderation. Because those virtues are necessary for the functioning of a constitutional republic, they are often called civic virtue, or republican virtue. This is not morality writ large, but something more limited and practical. As the late Irving Kristol argued in an essay 45 years ago, republican virtue is fundamentally the virtue of public-spiritedness as the Founding Fathers knew it:

It means curbing one’s passions and moderating one’s opinions in order to achieve a large consensus that will ensure domestic tranquility. We think of public-spiritedness as a form of self-expression, an exercise in self-righteousness. The Founders thought of it as a form of self-control, an exercise in self-government.

Kristol further described this in terms of “probity, t***hfulness, self-reliance, diligence, prudence, and a disinterested concern for the welfare of the republic.” A cofounder of the policy journal The Public Interest, he understood that in a republic there is such a thing as the public interest apart from—and perhaps at odds with—one’s own personal interests, and thus it requires citizens to restrain themselves in the slow, deliberative workings of constitutional and civic institutions, and even in their interactions with one another, as Roberts emphasized in his letter.

As it happens, Roberts is not the only justice returning to these themes. Last autumn, Justice Neil Gorsuch published A Republic, If You Can Keep It, a collection of essays, speeches, and judicial opinions in which he elaborates on his sense of the Supreme Court’s proper place in constitutional government, and in the country more generally. Many of the book’s themes—originalism, textualism, and the structural Constitution—are familiar to lawyers and the broader public. But Gorsuch, like Roberts, goes beyond familiar structural arguments and calls for civic education and civility, reminding Americans that the Constitution’s structure is not self-preserving.

For Gorsuch, civic virtue requires civility. His book highlights the example of his own court. The justices are able to argue and disagree so vigorously in their judicial opinions only because they work so hard to foster a spirit of community with one another: “We eat lunch together regularly and share experiences and laughs along the way,” he wrote, “and whenever we gather for work, no matter how stressful the moment, every justice shakes the hand of every other justice.”

The spirit of community among nine justices is not so easy for the country as a whole to replicate. “My worry,” Gorsuch warned, “is that in our country today we sometimes overlook the importance of these kinds of bonds and traditions, and of the appreciation for civility and civics they instill.” In a time when many “people are actually calling for an end to civility,” when people believe that “more anger is needed [because] the stakes are too high and the ends justify the means,” Gorsuch urged that for “a government of and by the people” to work, the people themselves need “to talk to one another respectfully; debate and compromise; and strive to live together tolerantly.” While the “essential goodness of the American people is a profound reservoir of strength,” it “cannot be taken for granted”; it “need[s] constant tending.” In an era of fractured politics, the blessings of freedom come “with the duty of having to listen to and tolerate other points of view,” because “democracy depends on our willingness, each one of us, to hear and respect even those with whom we disagree.”

By emphasizing civility as a measure of one’s self-restraint, rather than a blunt demand for our opponents to restrain themselves, Gorsuch avoids the mistake of making civility a phony substitute for civic virtue. As David Brooks observed recently in these pages, describing the thought of the late Gertrude Himmelfarb, Irving Kristol’s wife, “A great deal … is lost when a society stops aiming for civic virtue and is content to aim merely for civility.” Gorsuch’s book calls for civility not to stifle disagreements on public matters, but to facilitate them.

These are themes that the Constitution’s framers knew well. Madison, for example, understood how much of his constitutional vision depended on republican virtue, and he wrote about it. But those writings have been overshadowed by his more famous quotes, on the need for constitutional structure to guard against mankind’s vices. “If men were angels,” he observed in “Federalist No. 51,” “no government would be necessary.” For people who aren’t angels, republican government relies on constitutional checks and balances, which redirect certain vices toward the public benefit: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” he argued, and liberty is safer when one ambitious branch of government counteracts another.

But to say that constitutional government does not need people to be angels is not to say that constitutional government requires no virtue at all. Madison himself warned against assuming otherwise. In “Federalist No. 55,” facing critics’ predictions of corruption in Congress, he observed that while “there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust,” there are also “other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.” But then, setting optimism aside, he warned:

Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

This was blunt. Madison knew that the Constitution could not be sustained if the country did not first sustain certain virtues of self-restraint among those who administer the government, and among the people who choose them.

Such themes resonate throughout The Federalist Papers, often explicitly, but often implicitly in Hamilton’s and Madison’s discussions of constitutional structure. Madison’s description of Congress is a good example of the latter. The Framers divided the legislative branch into two houses, requiring deliberative processes within each house to pass a bill in each; and then a deliberative process between the two houses to settle on a bill that both could pass; and, finally, a deliberative process for the president to sign their bill or for congressional supermajorities to overcome his veto. This process is possible only if the participants are capable of deliberation, persuasion, compromise, and consensus. It requires a patient willingness to abide by procedures and rules even when they do not deliver one’s own preferred outcome in a given legislative fight—lest the legislative process devolve into total war, with political factions “destroying and devouring one another.”

Other branches of government, designed differently for different types of action, require virtues of their own. And on these points, Hamilton and Madison made the arguments for republican virtue much more explicit. Take, for example, the seminal discussion of judicial power in “Federalist No. 78.” Hamilton argued that judicial independence is necessary because constitutional government requires judges of a particular temperament, judges whose deep learning in the law makes them willing to “be bound down”—more accurately, to bind themselves down—“by strict rules and precedents.” It requires judicial self-restraint.

And even in recognizing that judges will sometimes need to declare statutes unconstitutional, Hamilton urged that they should exercise this power with restraint and moderation, nullifying statutes only when there is an “irreconcilable variance” between the statute and the Constitution—that is, to first try to reconcile the variance, to find a “fair construction” that lets both the statute and the Constitution stand. Hamilton’s judges are moderate and self-restrained, striking down statutes as a last resort, not a first one.

Hamilton’s view of judicial self-restraint echoes Madison’s own explanation, in “Federalist No. 37,” that written laws’ inherent vagueness will often require time for legal meaning to be “liquidated and ascertained” through “a series of particular discussions and adjudications”—a process that is impossible if all legal ambiguity must be resolved immediately by the first judges to hear every legal question. In other words, “Federalist No. 37” and “Federalist No. 78” recognize that the judicial branch itself must exercise a measure of patience.

The necessity of virtue and self-restraint comes through even more clearly with regard to the presidency. The Constitution contains express provisions for p**********l self-restraint: The president swears an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” and he bears a constitutional duty to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed.” By these vows the president is bound to enforce not just the statutes that he likes but also the inherited statutes that he dislikes, so long as the statute is constitutional.

Defenders of p**********l power—recently Attorney General William Barr, in his address to the Federalist Society—often quote Hamilton’s discussion, in “Federalist No. 70,” of the Constitution.

Hamilton made these points even more bluntly elsewhere. In “Federalist No. 68,” he argued for choosing the president through an e*******l college, rather than by parliamentary e******n or direct democracy, in order to maximize the odds of electing presidents with “the requisite qualifications”—not men with “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity,” but “characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.”[/i]

JW

A democracy is the opposite of a republic. Democracy makes a republic impossible. To put it as simply as I can, a republic is rule by law; a democracy is rule by majority. In a republic, law is the final arbiter. In a democracy, law exists only so long as the majority v**es for it. Republics are stable; democracies are unstable.

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

A republic is defined as a political system in which the supreme power is vested upon the citizenry that is entitled to v**e for its representatives and officers responsible to them, while a democracy is defined as a government of the people and by the people exercised through elected or direct representative.The United States is a democratic republic because the country v**es to elect leaders who then make laws, run the government and enforce the laws.
A constitutional democratic republic is a type of government based on the principles of a constitution in which officials elected by the people represent the people in the legislative and governing processes. A constitutional republic is not a direct democracy in that a mere plurality of the v**ers does not get to control the processes of the government directly. The United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic

newbear Loc: New York City

JW,

In a paragraph you explained succinctly what should be obvious to many contributors on here.

I congratulate you.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

I agree 100%

cr

I am 87 years of age and I had the good fortune to tune in and listen to a Man named "Paul Harvey", who seem to search the files in our Library of Congress. When the first Settlers landed in North America, They were seeking Freedom for Religion, all the World at that time so Socialist/C*******t, Capitalism was discovered by an accident/experiment due to the extreme cold weather, the big mistake was thinking some of the early Settlers were Gold Brickers, because they were to share and share alike.They weren't producing enough food for all, so an early Leader, decided to let them produce what ever they want in abundance and trade off what they didn't need for what they needed. This created the Great Migration, when word got out, come to America, you can do what ever you wish to pursue as your profession. The rest is History, also remember, the Settlers arrived here about the Mid Sixteen Hundreds, out Constitution was written about 125 years later, so again our Constitution is not out of date because our Founders had over a Hundred Years of History to observe how the Socialisi/C*******t would infilltrate our Country. Term Limits were built in for Senators, but the 17th Amendment destroyed that. The only think that I think they might have erred was the unknown life expectancy for the Supreme Court Judges.

saltwind78

Fodaoson, Not exactly, c*******m is a type of socialism. Socialism is a wide ideology with many variations. C*******m is the most extreme example. It seeks to o*******w free enterprise through violent revolution. It maintains that the world must become c*******t to guarantee the worldwide revolution. It believes that all forms of religion is a way of supporting the status quo. C*******ts believe that until there is world revolution, a " dictatorship of the proletariat " must be instituted to further protect the workers revolution. After the revolution, this dictatorship will wither away and world wide c*******m will become truly international as national borders disappear.
On the right wing of socialism is the democratic form. This type of socialism believes in handing power over to the winners of an e******n. Unlike c*******m, it doesn't necessarily believe in all the means of production and distribution to be nationalized.
It is interesting to note that c*******t Marxism and democratic socialism are often at odds with each other, and consider other forms of socialism from themselves to be treasonous to the working class.

bahmer

Amen and Amen

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

They aren't at odds, they are battling for control and power. Both believe they have a divine right to rule, that's why they are always spouting how smart they are. I'll t***slate that for you, who can lie, steal, and con the best.

JoyV

How so? Mob rule is not supportive of republicanism. Eliminate our e*******l college to replace it with an e******n system of democracy and it will be a big step in destroying our Republic.

JoyV

Very well put!

JoyV

The term, democratic republic is a term invented by those trying to impose democracy on our republic without openly admitting so. There is no such thing as a democratic republic. The two are antithetical to each other. Electing leaders or representatives is not exclusive to democracy.

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.

In our Republic, the United States Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One v**e in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

While in a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.