Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

Kindred wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Such occurs with the establishment of any form of government. The Constitution really doesn't say much more than establishing the structure and type of government, establishing powers, a method for Amendment, restrictions on the government, and little else, if it's done right. You're not so much forcing a law proper on people, but a form of government. In practice, a republican form is the best one. Of course, there will always be people who will disagree with a law, regardless of form of government, but in a republic, the laws tend not to be tyrannical in nature, which is common in democracies, and there are means to check it if it is unjust or illegal, such as jury nullification.

Deciding what form of government people (current and future generations) have to subsist in is as authoritarian as it comes.

Oh, can you provide examples of these tyranical laws which are 'common' in democracies but are absent in republican forms?

Well the problem here is that any case study of Democracy or republic that could be given would be flawed.

The O.P could have far refined this debate far more by mention some spesific theories of goverance such as direct democracy or representative republic as oposed to the stupidly vauge 'democracy or republic'.

[Fido]

bigstick61 wrote: Actually, the minority does not rule in a republic. The law rules. There are checks against the people, the government, and to ensure that a minoiryt does not come to power in a tyrannical sense. The minority does not dictate anything to the majority, and for the most part, the reverse is true as well, in a republic.

What part of the public do you believe elects presidents? I assure you it is a fraction, but why? Frustration and impotency are built into the system more securely than justice, which demands the agreement of all. A person not voting is a no vote. People voting against are a no vote. People having to compromise their ethics, or their moralities in order to defend some essential rights that should never be abridged, or for some local concern that the nation has no right to decide are all no votes. For the sake of a non existent expedience this country is weakened more with every right it denies, and every fight it makes upon the rights of the people. Do you believe that people do not notice that their government is apart from them, and has become their enemy? They are not fools, even if they have been turned against their brothers like Cain, and Able. They only have to realize they can trust their brothers better than their government for there to be a complete change in society.

What does it serve to say that law rules, but as a device to deny that we are ruled from the grave by the dead? We are trapped in our constitution by our fear of giving those who actually rule in this country: Business, police, and military absolute and unhindered control over our lives. I will not say we should have no constitution, but it would begin with a bill of rights and end with an expiration date. The dead are not quick enough on their feet to react to the problems we face, and this will be as true for future generations. If we can set a goal as they did in their constitution, and meet it as their constitution did not; then we will have earned some credit. But to saddle the future with the fears of the present, and to deny to future generations the blessings of liberty in exchange for the curse of prosperity or a mind numbing stability is a crime for which we should be dug up like our founding fathers and burned. We can do better. Let's have at it.

[Fido]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kindred wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Such occurs with the establishment of any form of government. The Constitution really doesn't say much more than establishing the structure and type of government, establishing powers, a method for Amendment, restrictions on the government, and little else, if it's done right. You're not so much forcing a law proper on people, but a form of government. In practice, a republican form is the best one. Of course, there will always be people who will disagree with a law, regardless of form of government, but in a republic, the laws tend not to be tyrannical in nature, which is common in democracies, and there are means to check it if it is unjust or illegal, such as jury nullification.

Deciding what form of government people (current and future generations) have to subsist in is as authoritarian as it comes.

Oh, can you provide examples of these tyranical laws which are 'common' in democracies but are absent in republican forms?

Well the problem here is that any case study of Democracy or republic that could be given would be flawed.

The O.P could have far refined this debate far more by mention some spesific theories of goverance such as direct democracy or representative republic as oposed to the stupidly vauge 'democracy or republic'.

We have specific examples of republics and direct democracies. There is no need for theories, but only for an understanding of why or why not each did or did not work. Adams for one, not John or Quincy, recognized the doomed condition of democracy. What he did not see was that the democracy that was new to us was the decrepit end stage of tribal democracy. That is why we have gone so fast from riches to rags. The democracy was there, at that exact point before the Oligarchs in Greece, of the Emperors in Rome. Even if our government has managed to resist becoming quite tyrannical, the lure of wealth and foreign adventure still make dictatorship inevitable. Unless we can reinvigorate ourselves with revolution, we will crumble under the weight of all our unmet expectations.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Fido wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kindred wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Such occurs with the establishment of any form of government. The Constitution really doesn't say much more than establishing the structure and type of government, establishing powers, a method for Amendment, restrictions on the government, and little else, if it's done right. You're not so much forcing a law proper on people, but a form of government. In practice, a republican form is the best one. Of course, there will always be people who will disagree with a law, regardless of form of government, but in a republic, the laws tend not to be tyrannical in nature, which is common in democracies, and there are means to check it if it is unjust or illegal, such as jury nullification.

Deciding what form of government people (current and future generations) have to subsist in is as authoritarian as it comes.

Oh, can you provide examples of these tyranical laws which are 'common' in democracies but are absent in republican forms?

Well the problem here is that any case study of Democracy or republic that could be given would be flawed.

The O.P could have far refined this debate far more by mention some spesific theories of goverance such as direct democracy or representative republic as oposed to the stupidly vauge 'democracy or republic'.

We have specific examples of republics and direct democracies. There is no need for theories, but only for an understanding of why or why not each did or did not work. Adams for one, not John or Quincy, recognized the doomed condition of democracy. What he did not see was that the democracy that was new to us was the decrepit end stage of tribal democracy. That is why we have gone so fast from riches to rags. The democracy was there, at that exact point before the Oligarchs in Greece, of the Emperors in Rome. Even if our government has managed to resist becoming quite tyrannical, the lure of wealth and foreign adventure still make dictatorship inevitable. Unless we can reinvigorate ourselves with revolution, we will crumble under the weight of all our unmet expectations.

my point was that you could not give an example of a 'republic' or a 'democracy' as both as schools of theories not a pratical political system in themselves.

[bigstick61]

Of course only a fraction of the population elects the President and VP. They are the 538 Electors of the Electoral College. The President was never meant to be directly elected, and rightfully so.

Also, when society is created, certain rights and freedoms are lost. Many of these comprise your basic criminal code, as well as a few others, and all who are born have no choice but to live as part of society in some way, shape, or form. The only way not to have this exist, either with the establishment of government, or of society, is to return to the state of nature, which to do would be outirght rediculous. It is not authoritarian. It is natural when something intended to last permanently or for a long time is created for people to be born into it without a say as to the form. This is true of every form of government and every country in the world. The only way to avoid this is, like I said, to have no government or society.

Democracies are prone to passing laws like those which result in the seizure of private property without compensation, and often without good reason, in particular when the poor are in the majority. A Constitution is no obstacle, as it can be easily amended to suit the will of the majority. Whatever the majority wants, it can ultimately get, to the detriment of others. Laws can't stop the majority, and historically, the majority has tyrannized the minority when it has the ability to do so. There is no justice in that, and you cannot truly be free under such conditions.

[Fido]

Quote: bigstick61 wrote: Of course only a fraction of the population elects the President and VP. They are the 538 Electors of the Electoral College. The President was never meant to be directly elected, and rightfully so.

Alright, I'll bight. Why exactly should the people not have a direct popular election for any of its citizens? Why for that matter should we accept equal powers ceded to states, hunks of land, to elect a Senate? This is a denial of democracy in a place that prides itself on democracy. It was a concession to special interests in property before the game was begun.
Quote:
Also, when society is created, certain rights and freedoms are lost. Many of these comprise your basic criminal code, as well as a few others, and all who are born have no choice but to live as part of society in some way, shape, or form. The only way not to have this exist, either with the establishment of government, or of society, is to return to the state of nature, which to do would be outirght rediculous. It is not authoritarian. It is natural when something intended to last permanently or for a long time is created for people to be born into it without a say as to the form. This is true of every form of government and every country in the world. The only way to avoid this is, like I said, to have no government or society.

Non sense. Societies have always been created if they did not already exist by blood affiliation for the protection of rights, usually in property, always for life, and often for liberty. Rights and freedom are lost in a process where economic power become more valuable than political power, or by the more straight forward method of being reorganized with minimal rights under a conquering enemy. If returning to a state of nature means returning to a form of democracy based upon family relationships, like a Tribe, or a Gen, I agree. But we have grown beyond such consanguineous democracies unless we can accept our fellow citizens as our brothers and sisters.

Quote: Democracies are prone to passing laws like those which result in the seizure of private property without compensation, and often without good reason, in particular when the poor are in the majority. A Constitution is no obstacle, as it can be easily amended to suit the will of the majority. Whatever the majority wants, it can ultimately get, to the detriment of others. Laws can't stop the majority, and historically, the majority has tyrannized the minority when it has the ability to do so. There is no justice in that, and you cannot truly be free under such conditions.

Are you suggesting that the poor should have no protection for their asset of labor while the rich should have protection for all he gathered from other peoples labor? There is a book called The Fire Next Time, and it is about the development of democracies in third world countries which have been deprived of it. I have seen the author interviewed, and if I understand correctly, when economically oppressed majorities get democratic political power they often exercise that power on distinct minorities who have grown wealthy on their sweat. It does happen. This I cannot deny. But is it any more just to have the minority tyrannize the majority? Now we have under the protection of law a small fraction of people actively engaged in exploiting the rest. They look just like us if you are mostly white. It is not like the Chinese exploiting the Hawaiians in Hawaii. But in a land we must all defend and support they own more than they can possibly defend, and they object to supporting it.
Unfortunately, it is quite easy to manage to keep change from the majority. When our interest are divided, and our religions are divided, and our locations and racial heritage are different it is easy to keep any majority from change especially when change must begin in the congress, and end in state legislatures. Caesar said: divide and conquer. We are more evenly divided than we were on the issue of slavery before the civil war. We could not get 2/3s of the people to agree on the sun in the sky. It is retarded to think we can change anything of substance when so much money is going against change. And the government cannot heal itself. It is determined to be the first hog at the trough, and do as little for that privilege as possible. They look at change as the enemy, and no change is the great destroyer of civilizations.

[bigstick61]

The President is the chief executive. As such he executes the laws of the Union. If the people have a direct say (the current method is tantamount to such), this makes it difficult for the President to do his job. Say Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional but popular, if the President vetoed it, he could lose his job come the next election. If he went ahead and it got overridden, if he did his duty to uphold the law, the Constitution, he'd lose his job most likely. Also, the President is supposed to serve as a secondary check upon the people in case the Senate fails as such in the original system. He can't check the people if he's chosen by the people directly if he wants to remain in office. He is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The public should not be able to directly affect strategy; Athens showed us why this is not desirable. In wartime, if the President executes a strategy which people don't like or are gotten to dislike by certain individuals who are against it, the President can lose his job, even if it's the best strategy. The President has no legislative powers whatsoever; he just enforces the law, dictates military and naval strategy in wartime, manages the government and such. There's no real need for him to be directly elected or elected through a system which essentially equates to such. Also, an indirectly elected President is needed to ensure that the judiciary remains independent. If the President usurps power, disobeys the law, does some sort of wrongdoing while inoffice, etc., he can be impeached; the people's branch, the House of Representatives, has the sole power to do so. However, he cannot be removed for merely enforcing the law which is unpopular, just for disobeying the law.

That is what I'm saying in regards to your last paragraph, in a sense. The money they recieve in exchange for their labor is the fruits of their labor so far as they're concerned. The owner of the property rightfully owns the product. He paid for the land, the equipment, the materials, etc. He pays people to assemble it and operate things, that is all. Those people have no claims to his property. The right to proerty is extremely important, and to deprive someone of their property because they are wealthy, or because they are unpopular, or because someone just thinks that it's right, is tyranny, plain and simple. Last I checked, the workers did not invst any money into the business, the owner did. If the worker wishes to be better off, he should work hard, try to learn new skills, and be smart with his money. In time he too can become a property owner. Everyone has the potential in a free republic; not every tries to fulfill it, and the consequences of this fault is something they and they alone must bear.

[Fido]

Bigs,
How do you separate the president's job from our will. Do you have blinkers on old horse? He has no right to his own agenda. He may think he's special, and he can vote for any president he likes. He can educate and sway public opinion; but if he is not doing the will of the people he is president of the wrong country.

[bigstick61]

Doing the will of the people is not his job and never was. It's kinda hard to have your own agenda when you have little power. His job is to enforce the law, command the armed forces in wartime, serve as a check on the people and on the legislature in general, help select the judiciary, and serve as a diplomat and figurehead, as well as to manage the government. He has no legislative powers whatsoever, and those which come close still have to be approved by the Senate.

The way the system works is that the Electors, who are chosen by the people for their personal qualifications and ideology, being the best of the best, debate on and choose the President and VP independently of the people, being delegates. The people don't vote for the President; the current method is actually illegal. He is indirectly elected. The reason for this is to insulate him somewhat from the people so he can do his job, among other reasons.

[Fido]

bigstick61 wrote: Doing the will of the people is not his job and never was. It's kinda hard to have your own agenda when you have little power. His job is to enforce the law, command the armed forces in wartime, serve as a check on the people and on the legislature in general, help select the judiciary, and serve as a diplomat and figurehead, as well as to manage the government. He has no legislative powers whatsoever, and those which come close still have to be approved by the Senate.

The way the system works is that the Electors, who are chosen by the people for their personal qualifications and ideology, being the best of the best, debate on and choose the President and VP independently of the people, being delegates. The people don't vote for the President; the current method is actually illegal. He is indirectly elected. The reason for this is to insulate him somewhat from the people so he can do his job, among other reasons.

I will concede that our founding fathers feared democracy, and tried to insulate the president from public mood swings. But then, if the law is not a product of the democracy, but is more like the president in being the product of plutocracy then what loyalty do we owe the government that thinks it owes us no faith? Some part of the government was designed to be democratic, though that part has been sabotaged to make it less so. So laws, through their funding should be a check upon the president that is democratic. Yet the president behaves as one not required to even go through the motions of democracy, which to butcher the Declaration of Independence is the right to petition for a redress of grievances. Opponents cannot even be on the same street as the president with a postitnote on a soda straw. Where is the right to peaceable assembly? He is not interested. And it is not democracy that gives him this right. This is a privilege he has taken to avoid the advice and consent of those affected by government.

Let me explain something to you about how the system was designed. Those paying the taxes were given the power, and that meant property. The burden of support for the government has been shifted onto labor, which gives those with property the money to influence the government elected by the people. Property rights are no longer self funded, or justified by their contribution to society. Property is a bank of wealth with undue effect upon government. Since property does not have to make money, but only provide minimal support for government through taxes, it can have a speculative value that raises the price beyond the reach of working people. Working people must pay for government, while government is under no obligation except morally to support wages, so what ever property working people buy must be bought with depressed wages after taxes. This makes the commodity value of money even greater than the needs of capital, so that to buy a house one must pay interest that can often triple the price of a house. To ease this burden to an acceptable degree the government makes this interest tax deductible, but what is this other than the governments support of usury? The price of the property is inflated by speculation, the price of labor is depressed by employers and oppressed by the burden of taxes, and the money needed for the necessities of life like housing is inflated by speculation. Government divorced from democracy, which I agree ours is, is only a short trip to a land of slaves and slavers. When property carried the government labor to make property profitable was dear, and land was cheap. That situation has been reversed, and labor alone carries every body. What did the Nazis say: Work makes free?

[bigstick61]

The country was not supposed to be democratic and rightfully so. With the perversion of the Electoral College and the ratification of the 17th Amendment, as well as the elimination of limited suffrage, this country is more democratic than it ever has been, to our detriment. Most of the Federal government's expansion and usurpations of power from the States and elsewhere is the direct result of democratization. Many of these usurpations and expansions were popular, but they are illegal and also unwise. Democratization has resulted in the near-destruction of the rule of law.

The people do have and always have had a say in the Federal government; such always must exist in a republic for it to be such. That is what the House of Representatives is for. It is composed of the people's representatives. However, there must be checks on the people for there to be a balance, and it is where the term checks and balances comes from. All parties must be checked to some degree for there to be a balance.

Much of what is going wrong due to the Federal government is a result of Federal usurpations of power they don't legally have, which in turn is a result of democratization. If the Federal government abided by the law, the Federal government would have very little effect on your everyday life. That is how it should be. Not onyl are we supposed to be a Federal Republic, but also one with a limited central government.

[Fido]

bigstick61 wrote: The country was not supposed to be democratic and rightfully so. With the perversion of the Electoral College and the ratification of the 17th Amendment, as well as the elimination of limited suffrage, this country is more democratic than it ever has been, to our detriment. Most of the Federal government's expansion and usurpations of power from the States and elsewhere is the direct result of democratization. Many of these usurpations and expansions were popular, but they are illegal and also unwise. Democratization has resulted in the near-destruction of the rule of law.

The people do have and always have had a say in the Federal government; such always must exist in a republic for it to be such. That is what the House of Representatives is for. It is composed of the people's representatives. However, there must be checks on the people for there to be a balance, and it is where the term checks and balances comes from. All parties must be checked to some degree for there to be a balance.

Much of what is going wrong due to the Federal government is a result of Federal usurpations of power they don't legally have, which in turn is a result of democratization. If the Federal government abided by the law, the Federal government would have very little effect on your everyday life. That is how it should be. Not onyl are we supposed to be a Federal Republic, but also one with a limited central government.

Well Bigs. I do not know where you are coming from, but my constitution says liberty, the blessing of liberty in fact. How can we be free if not democratic, and how can we know justice if not democratic. I know people like to build organizational structures to do the thinking for them, but in the case of the structure known as the U.S. A from where does the president get his powers if not from the people. Do you think dead people gave it to him? Do you think dead people really care, or did the caring go out of them with their wind? Like it or not, the U.S. is a relationship of human beings, and living ones. If one has a power, or a right, then that person can give that right to another acting as his agent. Kind of like a power of attorney. But one can give to no person, nor attorney, nor president any power one does not own. I do not have the right to kill, so I cannot give that to my president, I have the right to defend myself, and others, and so I can give that power to my president as my agent. But if I do not give him this right, does he still have the right to act to protect me without my permission? And does it matter if my grand father gave him that permission, and my grandfather is dead? What part do the dead have in the living? It is agreed that in this country the people are sovereign. Is this true, and if so, do dead people qualify? If the President is not elected by the people democratically then he is a tyrant. In fact I may well concede my powers to him to act in my name even if I did not elect him, and even if he was never elected; and I may not. I reserve the right to resist injustice where ever I see it. I do not concede the president has powers by virtue of his election except his own multiplied by the number of voters. Nothing has changed the quality of his powers. His powers are no greater than is our right to sustain him in them, and again, we can not give what we do not own. Kings and commoners are subjects of the same law. We may well have an elected monarch, but his true powers do not amount to nearly what he takes without permission. And to say dead people, through a structure they built that is incapable of bending with time -to serve the needs of the present gives him powers we and they together did not own is daft. The office is a fraud without the support of the people, and is a fraud even with their support if it exceeds their rights in quality. The president may have more right, but does not have more rights. Do you understand the difference?

[David Kelly]

The President must answer to the people. He isn't above them, but at the same level as them. He has the right to lead our armies to grand conquest, but doesn't have the right to tell us what to do if illegal. The current US president has sized almost total power and the USA is no longer a republic, but an empire lead by a minority.
This is the fate of all republics and I tell you now, Tyranny by the Majority (democracy if/once it fails) is far better then tyranny by the Minority (republic if/once it fails).

[bigstick61]

Majoritarian rule is not justice, because the majority is pretty much free to do what they want. A large enough majority in a democracy can rewrite laws as they please. If the judges are elected, then they are partial to the popular will, and therefore there is no real due process. A republic protects the minority from the majority, ensures die process is followed, and also prevents minority tyranny or general governmental tyranny. It balances power to create a system which is the best for freedom and justice to thrive in.

Republics don't degrade in the way you think. On occasion they become empires. However, in most cases, and this is happening the the US now, they degrade into democracies, resulting in either majoritarian tyranny, or a minority being able to sway the masses to put him into power, thereby creating minority tyranny due to the majority. In any case, I'd rather have minority tyranny, as it is far easier to overcome a minority than it is for the minority to overcome the majority. Majoritarian tyranny is difficult to break.

[Fido]

David Kelly wrote: The President must answer to the people. He isn't above them, but at the same level as them. He has the right to lead our armies to grand conquest, but doesn't have the right to tell us what to do if illegal. The current US president has sized almost total power and the USA is no longer a republic, but an empire lead by a minority.
This is the fate of all republics and I tell you now, Tyranny by the Majority (democracy if/once it fails) is far better then tyranny by the Minority (republic if/once it fails).

I find it very easy to agree with most of what you say here. The president does not have the right to conquest, because that is not a right we have as individuals, and no matter how this non right is multiplied it does not become a right. He has sworn to protect and defend the constitution. I would say that task should begin at home. If we were strong as a people we would not invite attack.
Democracies should look for consensus, and there is no reason this is not possible. If all one must have is a majority then there is no number beyond that majority that one can safely antagonize and rule. And it is also a waste of effort to please more than you need to rule so that the need for a simple majority has led to an almost equal minority that is unhappy, and a majority which is unhappy, and frustrated, even with power, and a country that is divided, and weak. It should be the other way around.
Consensus would demand that every citizen, area and state be satisfied by government. We all have an equal need and right to good government, and government will not serve any more than it is required to. It is not a charity. It is an economic relationship where the people pay for government with taxes and deserve good administration of resources, and protection of rights. Both parties are elected today on promises to sell out rights on the other side, and this is not good government. When one is forced to vote to defend the rights that government was established to protect they are not electing able administrators. The are instead electing their own hangman. If the great owners of property no longer carry the government with taxes, but unduly influence the government into disastrous wars against the very people we most need as friends they are being criminals, and defeating our democracy on other shores to weaken it here. Majority rule is better than minority rule, but each is a recipe for disaster. Only consensus when time permits as it usually does, to satisfy all people and invite all ideas into national debates will ever preserve democracy into infinity. To cut one person out of their power over their affairs is the beginning of decline.

[Fido]

bigstick61 wrote: Majoritarian rule is not justice, because the majority is pretty much free to do what they want. A large enough majority in a democracy can rewrite laws as they please. If the judges are elected, then they are partial to the popular will, and therefore there is no real due process. A republic protects the minority from the majority, ensures die process is followed, and also prevents minority tyranny or general governmental tyranny. It balances power to create a system which is the best for freedom and justice to thrive in.

Republics don't degrade in the way you think. On occasion they become empires. However, in most cases, and this is happening the the US now, they degrade into democracies, resulting in either majoritarian tyranny, or a minority being able to sway the masses to put him into power, thereby creating minority tyranny due to the majority. In any case, I'd rather have minority tyranny, as it is far easier to overcome a minority than it is for the minority to overcome the majority. Majoritarian tyranny is difficult to break.

I am not arguing for majority rule, but for consensus. If all you need is a majority, only the majority has a hope of being satisfied with government. A democracy is a defense of the rights of all the people, which are endangered by majority and minority rule. Each has the right to consent in reality, but democracy is this right of consent with political status. Republics degrade into tyrannies, and tyrannies often play to big democratic issues without regard for individual protections. Nazism had anti Semitism, and anti communism, and living space as democratic issues. The Tyrants of Greece, as opposed to the Oligarchs had the support of the people. Caesar was a democratic dictator. In what way is this superior to the sorts of democracy we see traces of in the Bible, or in the history of the Germans, or the Iroquois; that looked for unanimity? Primitive democracies may have fallen unnoticed by the scores or hundreds. We do know that those that survived did survive because they included everyone, and brought every mind to bear in government. And it is likely that when society got too large to have common agreement, or because government was unwieldy, that nations split up, sometimes as friends and allies, and sometimes becoming enemies. Yet the demand for democratic recognition of the right to consent to the laws one is bound by continued.
I must warn you of one fact. Republics do not become empires. (Bush is quite right to say democracies do not attack their neighbors.) When ever a country becomes an empire it is first defeated at home. The defeat of the French, and the suppression of their revolution by Napoleon was the true beginning of his extra territorial conquests. Caesar won a victory in a fight against the Patricians -that was long in coming and was well marked with bloodshed. The rich had already dispossessed the plebs from their farms and fields, who in turn still had political power without the economic power to defend it. Henry the Eighth made war on his nobles and the church, and it was his victories at home, and abroad that set up Elizabeth for empire, and her merchants for the industrial revolution. Empire for the United States would be out of the question if our democracy were anything other than a fat dog asleep before the fire of wealth. The people have been neutered by majority rule because the structure of government has allowed it. If it supported equality of political rights great inequalities of wealth would not exist, and those that do exist would not destroy the equality of political rights. A government that recognizes two classes of rights must reserve to itself the right to defend this inequality. It is because only economic rights matter in America that our victorious rich find comfort in conquest.

And yes, if it is possible to be more just without being just, then, Majority rule is more just than minority rule. Consensus is justice. And if it were not minorities and majorities, but rather, a large man, and a small man; or if it were an old man, and a young man then justice would be the same for both sides in the dispute. No settlement of difference can be just for one side, and unjust for the other. It must just for both sides, or unjust for both sides.

[David Kelly]

I only said the president had the right of conquest because he is CIC.

[Fido]

David Kelly wrote: melchizedek22 wrote: this is all out dated,in the new Bush order,he is King follows what laws he feels like,all others "forgetaboutit"

True.
But that's a little off topic. We're debating democracy vs. republic, not freedom vs. Bush.

I think it is the central point of difference between democracy of a direct sort, and representative commonwealths. Can any individual, in going from a direct democracy to a representative one, delegate more powers, which is to say addition powers, or powers of a different quality than any person possessed previously? If I cannot kill how do I cede that power to another, and if I cannot assault one how do I allow it. Republics are not true democracies, but are only democratic. Still, some of the worse abuses of humanity have occurred under republics. They are no guarantee of safety or rights to the individual, nor peace to the nation. In fact, without a state there can be no war. But these faults of republics, like the strengths of republics, lies in the thought that some part of the population can give to government extra-ordinary rights because they want to. Democracies, on the other hand receive their strength from the consent of the governed. They talk the talk with a single voice, and then they back up.

[bigstick61]

Of course the President has no right of conquest. Only Congress could authorize such an action. The President just manages the military, directs strategy and tactics, etc.

Consensus rule is not always right. What the majority prefers may not always be a good thing and this is why there are checks on the people. Action is done through representatives. There, in the House, a consensus rule is a given, as the Representatives are there to do the will of the people, within the boundaries set forth by the law. However, what the majority wants may not always be good, and the authors of the Constitution recognized that, as do all advocates of republican government, and that is why the Senate and President, who are indirectly elected, serve as checks in such cases. They prevent something bad from becoming law. Conversely, if the State governments or simply the Senate in general wanted to do something which was very unpopular, or bad for the people, which can happen due to insulation, from time to time, they cannot do it because of the representative branch. You have these checks, and the result is a balance, which is the most just way. There should always be a balance of power, rather than a preponderance in favor of any one basic party. In terms of the executive, he executes the law, not makes it. Executing the law does not require consensus, and abiding by it may hinder him in carrying out his duties.

You do have other checks on the government than just the House of Representatives, which essentially operates on consensus. For example, say that Congress passed a law that was both unjust and illegal, or one or the other, and someone was charged with disobeying it. Jurors not ony have the right and duty to review the facts of the case, but to review the law as well, and they can essentially nullify it by acquitting the defendant. It only takes one, and it is in essence a citizen's version of judicial review. Of course, to prevent the abuse of this, the government also has the power of appeal, and where the law is just or legitimate, it can be overturned. Thus another balance. You also have the right to keep and bear arms and the right to just revolution in the face of tyranny, which is enabled by the aforementioned right. Rights are very important in republics, and are often placed into the law as a guarantee, although this is not necessary for their existence.

Republics are not ruled by a minority, they are not ruled by the majority, and they are not ruled by consensus. They are ruled by the law, hence the term rule of law, and one which is initially approved of by the people to be established and where rights are of the utmost importance, and this is why the system is the most just, as well as the most capable of allowing freedom to thrive.

[Fido]

bigstick61 wrote: Of course the President has no right of conquest. Only Congress could authorize such an action. The President just manages the military, directs strategy and tactics, etc.

Consensus rule is not always right. What the majority prefers may not always be a good thing and this is why there are checks on the people. Action is done through representatives. There, in the House, a consensus rule is a given, as the Representatives are there to do the will of the people, within the boundaries set forth by the law. However, what the majority wants may not always be good, and the authors of the Constitution recognized that, as do all advocates of republican government, and that is why the Senate and President, who are indirectly elected, serve as checks in such cases. They prevent something bad from becoming law. Conversely, if the State governments or simply the Senate in general wanted to do something which was very unpopular, or bad for the people, which can happen due to insulation, from time to time, they cannot do it because of the representative branch. You have these checks, and the result is a balance, which is the most just way. There should always be a balance of power, rather than a preponderance in favor of any one basic party. In terms of the executive, he executes the law, not makes it. Executing the law does not require consensus, and abiding by it may hinder him in carrying out his duties.

You do have other checks on the government than just the House of Representatives, which essentially operates on consensus. For example, say that Congress passed a law that was both unjust and illegal, or one or the other, and someone was charged with disobeying it. Jurors not ony have the right and duty to review the facts of the case, but to review the law as well, and they can essentially nullify it by acquitting the defendant. It only takes one, and it is in essence a citizen's version of judicial review. Of course, to prevent the abuse of this, the government also has the power of appeal, and where the law is just or legitimate, it can be overturned. Thus another balance. You also have the right to keep and bear arms and the right to just revolution in the face of tyranny, which is enabled by the aforementioned right. Rights are very important in republics, and are often placed into the law as a guarantee, although this is not necessary for their existence.

Republics are not ruled by a minority, they are not ruled by the majority, and they are not ruled by consensus. They are ruled by the law, hence the term rule of law, and one which is initially approved of by the people to be established and where rights are of the utmost importance, and this is why the system is the most just, as well as the most capable of allowing freedom to thrive.

If the president hasn't the right, but congress can give it to him where do they get it?
If it is necessary for dead people, who happened to write our constitution, to act as a check upon our democracy; where did they get the insight? Most people cannot see beyond the next paycheck, but our writers of the constitution must have been Gods to clearly see our needs from days gone by. Does the wisdom of congress and the president only stop bad laws from becoming, or do they stop good ones as well? Can you justify the statement that the president does not make law? He not only can prevent laws, but also send up budgets, which is not how our government was designed. He can also disregard laws, and not enforce them as he sees fit, and he has a great deal of interest and power in resisting investigation. What you do not seem to understand is that every republic from the most mild to the most oppressive is a form of government based upon the function of containing a captive slave population within ones borders. It is never intended as democracy for all, but democracy for a certain class, so that class could know justice within injustice. We do not recognize our slave population, nor do we allow them any thought of power. We say the rule of law, but this is the rule of men who use laws much as the Romans used the bundle of rods to make common cause against their slaves. This used to be one of the symbols of this country.

We do not have the right to bear arms, and we do not have in the constitution of this republic the right to revolution. The founding document of our democracy is the declaration of independence. The founding document of this republic is the constitution. You must know that the house of representatives has made its own rules, and been supported in this by the Court. This change made without amendment has limited democracy still further than the constitution intended. As for jury nullification. You might hang a jury anytime. But try to encourage going against a law to do so, and you will be charged with jury tampering.
Law is just an excuse for dead men to rule living men, and it is the administration of this rule for the sake and benefit of the dead by living people of a select class who are its true beneficiaries that make government onerous. It does not work for any purpose but the one intended, and that is to control slaves.