dongreen76 wrote:
Good afternoon : So we are back to the debate of whether or not we are a democracy or what ever.
Not exactly, Don. Because there really isn’t a debate to be had.
Quote:
I have done the research as per stated above"so we are back.... and in doing this research I have read the text of the debates of the founding fathers/framers to determine which political philosophies they should use that should be our laws of governing rule.It was extensive.There were many pros and cons over which type of government we should have.They decided in principle on a democracy;denominative to the democracy; there was inserted a Republic.
I’m not denying that there was much debate about the form of government we would have. The conclusion of your extensive research seems to be in direct conflict with Article IV Section IV of the US Constitution, as well as our charters of freedom, due to the fact that the word
democracy, isn’t in any of them. I’m very interested in which sources you scoured that led to your conclusion. Perhaps you could list a few, if you can find the time?
Quote:
Keeping in mind they had very little faith in the proletariats ability to govern it self with the wisdom needed to reach the goal of establishing and birthing a new nation and sustain it.The democracy is are foundation in which this country stands.Democracy is prerequisite to the concept of freedom.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Democracy is the antithesis of freedom. Democracy allows for the disenfranchisement of the minority. A Republic respects the rights of the minority, right down to the individual, freedom of the individual.
Quote:
Democracy is merely the Idea of the people having a say so in how or what they will be governed by as oppose to any type of totaltarian rule -even though we have a republic,it is still denominative to an intrinsic Democracy.
Actually it doesn’t. A democracy is defined as mob rule, tyrannical/totalitarian by its very nature. For instance: if a democracy consisted of 100 people, and 51 (51%) of them were in favor of one thing, but the other 49 were not, the 49 have no recourse for appeal, they are stuck with what the 51 want, or don’t want for that matter. Not so in a Republic. A couple of examples of what I mean; ask yourself how many states are needed to pass a constitutional amendment. And, how much of the Congress is needed to override a presidential veto. There are many other examples, but these two should suffice.
Quote:
This comes about due to true
Democratic elections that takes place on
the domestic local levels -these feed and
Percipatates the Republic.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. But you seem to be separating state elections from federal elections, and that they are somehow a Democratic process as opposed to a Republican process. Perhaps you would be willing to clarify your statement for me.
Quote:
Lastly,in another post discussing whether or not we were a Democracy or a Republic,You should keep in mind that there does not exist any true Democracy's(ies) nor does there exist any true states of Communism, we are more or less the closes thing to it.
This much is mostly accurate. And the reason is that both of those forms of government are proven failures historically speaking. And the Framers (to include most of the colonists at the time) of our constitution knew this much before they even began the framing debates.
Enjoy your evening, Don. I’ll leave you with a quote:
“It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”Alexander Hamilton, Speech to Congress, June 21, 1788