|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
Oculus Spirit [91383]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 45631
Joined: 10/18/09
|
History lesson from a CU history student & grad, as I understand it~
Nov 14, 2022, 5:50 PM
|
|
Our government was established by a national charter called the Constitution.
Our Founders (aka "Framers" of the Constitution) rejected the use of the word democracy by itself but rather chose the word republic.
Thus, we are a democratic Republic that's governed by the three institutions (Executive, Legislative & Judicial).
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Our Founders felt that the institutions formed by the Constitution to be more Republican in nature rather than democratic since they did not believe in pure or unrestrictive democracy since it favored the Rule of the mob or crowd popularity.
So, while they did build in many democratic elements into the Constitution, they also built in non-democratic features to insure personal liberty and unwanted tyranny.
Example: the popular national vote does NOT win a presidential election (as some losing candidates scream about when they get 2-3 million more votes but still lose the election).
The reason that presidential candidate didn't win with more national votes is b/c they didn't win via the legal & constitutional mandated way of winning national presidential elections..
which is to win the majority of EACH State's voter's ballot tally and by doing so the candidate wins & takes that state's majority of its Electoral votes which when added up nationally state by state, the winner is the candidate that has the allotted number of electoral votes needed to win office outright nationally.
Saying, vote tallying state by state evens the field of play by allowing small states to be consequentially as important as bigger populated states proportionally and is another safeguard from mob rule or populism.
The Founders knew enough even back then that a large city (Boston, Philly or NY) would have an unfair & larger voter representation of citizens versus say a rural area, small town or state..
and thus they wisely mandated thru the Constitution (the Law of the Land) that presidential candidates win the popular vote of "Each State" collectively..and not a national popularity contest (or possibly one of mob rule).
Makes you wonder & maybe suspicious too why a political party would want to try & circumvent our long standing and highly successful Constitution that has served us so well especially in outlining our voting procedures and giving authority to the individual states and not to the Federal government.
Today we can see the wisdom of this since CA, NY & couple other states or cities would overwhelm the votes of all the other states & cities due to their being so large in population and seemingly always leaning one way politically.
Yes Siree, our Founders tried to save our assses since both political parties have tried to circumvent the Law of The Land (aka The Constitution)..like recently trying to push Federalization of our voting system over the States Rights given by The Constitution.
Lastly, our Founders did not particularly like political parties per say and did not make mention in the Constitution of us being influenced by them, as they do today.
In fact, political parties are no more than business entities that work up a list of viable candidates they like for various seats available in local, state & federal positions that they want to run for & win with our support..
thus they push & promote them on us to get our needed votes..and when they win they are off for 4 years with an open bank account to enhance their patrons, their wallets plus have power & control.
That said, have you noticed how keen the two party system officials & politicians of each like to keep us fighting among ourselves while they all play & seem to grow rich in high office on minimum governmental salaries!
(I approve this post; signed: Lightbulb BILL)~
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [5717]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12202
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: History lesson from a CU history student & grad as I understand it~
Nov 14, 2022, 5:56 PM
|
|
Great post! Indeed the left has no idea about and do not care about any founding principles.
Besides they were white and pry slave owners. that’s their justification for judging founders and constitution meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
So you think the slave owners...
Nov 15, 2022, 8:05 AM
|
|
You know, the ones claiming states rights and wanting to secede from the federal government, were leftist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5717]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12202
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: So you think the slave owners...
Nov 15, 2022, 2:08 PM
|
|
Check the language in the declaration of independence.
Why do you have the false impression the gubment founded in 1776 could not digress into an entity worthy of seceding from?
And, why would you want to prevent it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38528
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: So you think the slave owners...
Nov 15, 2022, 2:26 PM
|
|
I'm going back to your statement. Don't dodge. Do you really believe the plantation slave owners were "leftist"? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17434]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14349
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Perhaps a new Constitution or amendment s that establish term limits …
Nov 14, 2022, 6:15 PM
|
|
And outlaw gerrymandering _ both in blue and red states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [828]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 3982
Joined: 4/14/09
|
Re: History lesson from a CU history student & grad as I understand it~
Nov 14, 2022, 6:31 PM
|
|
"The Founders knew enough even back then that a large city (Boston, Philly or NY) would have unfair & larger voter representation of citizens versus a rural state like SC.."
So you don't believe that everyone should have an equal vote?
You understand that this was written when slaves weren't considered fully human?
The Constitution was written the way it was to appease the slaveholding states. We'd be far better off with a parliamentary democracy.
In recent years, we've seen the tyranny of the minority as the residents of low-population conservative states have hijacked federal policies.
I read a lot of desperation in the posts of conservatives who can't accept the bad election result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27516]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15868
Joined: 1/26/22
|
The Southern States wanted slaves counted as full voters
Nov 14, 2022, 7:12 PM
|
|
Granted, not for the right reasons, but the three-fifths compromise was to appease the Northern states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12323]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5422
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Re: The Southern States wanted slaves counted as full voters
Nov 14, 2022, 8:08 PM
|
|
Granted, not for the right reasons, but the three-fifths compromise was to appease the Northern states.
This and to keep the Southern States from using their slaves (who couldn't vote) as a way to artificially increase the South's population numbers in order to give them greater representation in Congress. If the South had been successful in using all of their slaves to increase their population numbers they would have had more influence over Federal Governing decisions - especially that of non-slave States.
The 3/5ths person rule highlights what a blight the institution of slavery was on the founding of our Nation. However the non-slave States and, in a perverse way, the slaves themselves ultimately derived some small benefit from the Southern slave owners not having the ability to use the full slave population against their own interests by increasing the Southern slave owning State power at the Federal level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112289]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74024
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Why are you living in the past Bill?
Nov 14, 2022, 7:27 PM
|
|
The founders had no idea the impact the internet and corporate-moderated mass media would do on a nation with 150x more US citizens than at the time it was written. People rode horses and neither penicillin nor electricity had been put to good use.. Possibly we should stop trying to bend our current framework to fit the world we live in and instead make a few substantive changes to set the ship back on course, or we could sit here and moan about how we f'd up and are beyond salvation. I know the founders would not have chosen the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12323]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5422
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Bill you need to change one word in the following sentence:
Nov 14, 2022, 8:13 PM
|
|
"We are a Republic that's ruled by the three institutions (Executive, Legislative & Judicial)."
Supposedly we are not "ruled" but "governed" even though I will admit there are many in our Federal Government who look at us as subjects and not equal citizens...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15179
Joined: 8/6/10
|
We are so far removed from the Constitution that this really
Nov 14, 2022, 8:32 PM
|
|
doesn't matter to be honest. I mean you're right, but so what? The federal government does whatever the #### it wants to and if you complain loud enough, they send the secret police to disappear you. We have the government we deserve though, plenty of people warned about this and nobody listened. It started with Patrick Henry: (we chose empire) https://www.redhill.org/primary-sources/liberty-or-empire/ Liberty or Empire? - Patrick Henry's Red Hill Patrick Henry, June 5, 1788 Henry’s statesmanship did not end with the Revolution and the achievement of independence. While recognizing the need to augment the financial resources of the confederation […]
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7289]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9523
Joined: 12/18/13
|
So explain the supremacy clause. Also quit confusing framers with founders.
Nov 14, 2022, 9:06 PM
|
|
Do people not learn in school anymore that the US had articles of confederation and they failed miserably? This whole school of thought is dumb, the framers appeased the less populous States because they needed them to ratify the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [91383]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 45631
Joined: 10/18/09
|
^ True cac2011...
Nov 14, 2022, 9:25 PM
|
|
We would not have had a country if Founders (aka Framers) hadn't offered a deal or two to the Southern states..thus the deals were offered & accepted and Viola, AMERICA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15179
Joined: 8/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7289]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9523
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: The AOC only failed banksters and mercantilists.***
Nov 14, 2022, 10:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12037]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10597
Joined: 9/19/01
|
The problem started pretty early
Nov 15, 2022, 7:56 AM
|
|
when congress started to attempt do-gooderism with federal funds.
Naturally, those politicians chafed under the strict and explicit wording of the Constitution and worked to expand the power and reach of the fed gubmint. Arguably, the seeds of our destruction were sown very early as congress, presidents, and the courts re-interpreted the Constitution to mean gubmint could spend money on whatever they could get passed instead of the limited areas laid out therein.
When James Madison (4th POTUS, an author of the Federalist Papers) was presented a bill to fund pensions for war widows and orphans (could there have been a more noble cause?) he vetoed it with the following comment:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
The man known as the Father of the Constitution thought the federal gubmint was strictly limited to the ennumerated functions and powers laid out there, and nothing more.
It would have been better if states had been the source of gubmint programs, if any, and we would not today be collectively sitting on the ticking time bomb of terminal debt that will inevitably destroy us.
When I was born our national debt was $250 billion. That was 185 years into our nation's history. Over the ensuing 60 years (1/4 of the time of the existence of the US) that debt has increased by a factor of 132 X.
Maybe 20% of our current $7 trillion budget could pass muster under Madison's test for constitutionality. What were the founders worried about?
We effed around and now we will inevitably find out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97994]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65055
Joined: 7/13/02
|
I love these people in history who think since they know
Nov 15, 2022, 8:13 AM
|
|
all about the founders, they know everything about them. They study the founders, and their actions and writings, in THEIR time. And then bewm, they know all about them.
I too am a history major from Clemson. Also a Poli Sci major as well (overachiever/glutton for punishment). To really have an understanding of our founding, you should NOT study our founders. Nope. You should study what our founders studied, read, and learned. You do that, and they make perfect sense, even today.
We don't have the stomach today, based on what WE HAVE LEARNED TODAY, to tolerate the system set up by our founders, based on what they learned. An entire generation of Americans, 4 or 5 or more really, have learned democracy is the best form of government. They have not learned the dangers of a democracy, and can not explain how we still exist, given our "democracy" status. They have a distorted reference point, and from there all sorts of crap flies. It is what it is. History, repeating itself. This is where people like Alexander de Tocqueville come into play, as interpreters of our founding, from another nation and from a different ideological background. How does democracy end up with a Committee of Public Safety and the guillotine in France, but ends up as the United States in America? Both were democratic revolutions. One succeeded and one failed miserably. There's a lot to learn in that. And no matter how much you know our founders, you can still be as clueless as any left-wing nutjob today.
It's the same misinterpretation that makes us assume everyone likes us, and strives for freedom like we have. This was the mistake in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the list is long. Democracies thrive, or fail, based on the people. Period. The more "diverse" (there's that word) the people, the more prone democracy is to failing. And this isn't racial. It's religious, cultural, etc. too. A country with like-minded people, who share common beliefs, they can thrive in a democracy. But a diverse population, with evenly split opinions, and cultures/races/beliefs/etc. will ultimately fail.
We are a democratic republic. REPUBLIC is a noun there, democratic is an adjective. And no one even understands this. But our population has been tainted by the exaltation of democracy as the perfect form of governance. It isn't. None are perfect. And based on the people, the population, it may be worse form of government than others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46940]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30833
Joined: 8/11/15
|
A republic is a form of democracy***
Nov 15, 2022, 8:25 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Yes. Democracy is an umbrella term
Nov 15, 2022, 8:33 AM
|
|
that's for any system of government in which the people make decisions about their governance. In a republic form of democracy, the people make decisions to choose representatives, who then make most of the other decisions of governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46940]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30833
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Also known as an indirect democracy
Nov 15, 2022, 8:39 AM
|
|
bad faith semantics when these conservatives say "well American isn't a democracy it's a republic
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97994]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65055
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Union of Soviet Socialists Republics says hello.
Nov 15, 2022, 9:07 AM
[ in reply to A republic is a form of democracy*** ] |
|
As does the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Lest we forget....the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Honorable Mention:
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Republic of Uganda
Republic of the Sudan
Republic of Yemen
Republic of Rwanda
Republic of Cuba
A republic is a structural form of government. It is not a form of democracy. It is essentially a mechanism for dispersing power and control to local entities, allowing local governance and self rule, under the umbrella of a larger, national government. This creates a system in which a diverse population can tolerate and coexist among themselves, under a broader national government. It allows for a happier population, as governance is localized, and that can mitigate the disenchantment seen when a single national government (democracy even) forces compliance among a diverse population.
The larger and more diverse a population, the less likely a democracy will succeed. Large and diverse democracies ALWAYS fail. Like 100% of the time. And then everyone points to the US, and they can't figure ourselves out. Democracies only thrive in small, homogenous populations. Tiny countries with similar, like-minded people. A republic can be democratic, communist, a monarchy, a theocracy, or anything else. It is a structural mechanism of governance that disperses power and control to placate a diverse population. Nothing more or less. It can exist under ANY form of ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15179
Joined: 8/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
