|
|
Post by Ubereil on Dec 27, 2009 20:54:46 GMT
Well, call'em what you want Ube, but your "anonomous" lady can come on the boards and defend her objections...  I believe she misses the other alternative...republic.. I believe republic was her first option. The other two were direct democracy and anarchy. And I'd love it if she signed up and took over. It's her choice though, and she doesn't have infinite time to argue on the internet. Anyway, we are a Republic, not a Democracy...However, a Republic works on "democratic principles". Our republic is quite different than say, the Peoples Democratic Republic of China or Korea. The Constitution of the US was hammered out by a group of men in 1787. They decided upon a representative republic for the nation, which is a system by which citizens elect representatives who – for a specific time – conduct the people’s business. That is very different from, say, a so-called direct democracy, in which citizens are asked to vote on just about every issue as it arises. Democracy is an approach to governing, (which Elliot dislikes ;D) as opposed to a form of government. It simply means participation by all citizens. Democracies abound around the globe, but few (if any) republics like the US. True. I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said though. Our history books tell the story of a lady (maybe your expert friend. ) asking Ben Franklin in Philadelphia when the delegates finally agreed on a constitution “What kind of a country have you given us, Mr. Franklin?” “A republic, madame, if you can keep it,” was Franklin’s reply. There is hardly anyone who studies history that has not ran across that statement someplace or the other....yet.... Depends on your definition of "studying history". I, for one, have never heard it. And I read history B back in high school. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., (an illustrious elected representative--since defeated) was addressing an audience of students at Harvard Law School. (in the early 2000's) He started his remarks by recalling that scene, but with a difference. In Daschle’s version, Franklin informed the questioner that the country decided upon by the framers would be “a democracy, if you can keep it.” So, I am not suprised that the lack of knowledge about the Constitution, by Americans, is appalling  I'm from Sweden. The person I'm talking is a politics nerd who's read everything from Hobbles to Rawls. She's also a patriot who loves the American constitution. You also didn't reply to the first post with all the objections on your article. It's almost as if you were ignoring it... (Reminds me of Elliot, really.) Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Dec 27, 2009 22:08:02 GMT
Well, since I'm not exactly an expert on the American constitution I decided to ask a friend who is. Her first objection two your two latest posts (ignoring the joke post (not because it's not funny but because it's irrellevant to your two previous posts)) was that the article could have been half as long because it's so repetious. To make it that repetious/long is a common brainwashing tactic, which is why she's not very suprized that you bought into it. Her second objection is that there are two alternatives to politicians: anarchy and direct democracy. Direct democracy simply wouldn't work in the United States of America. It wouldn't work because it's far too big. It wouldn't even have worked back in the start when the US was far smaller than it is today. From what I've seen of your political views earlier on you're not exactly a fan of anarchy either, so you are stuck with politicians, SS. Third, saying that the constitution didn't make blacks into 3/5'th pepole shows that you don't fully understand what the constitution is. It's not only the amendments that's part of the constitution, it's also the laws. Fourth, no, the constitution didn't really say anything about gender explicitly. But pepole read it like that anyway (all them politicians that ensured that America was so great 100 years ago). Pepole back then understood that the constitution applied only to pepole. Meaning white males, the rest weren't really pepole. That is why the 19:th ammendment was necesary, and the 14:th as well. Those two ammendments weren't possible to interpret in any other way than all humans being equal. They were necesary because without them pepole (and that's loads of pepole by the way) would apply some creative thinking to remove the rights for pepole who weren't of their color, gender and religion. Saying what you said is only possible if you ignore the historical context that existed when these two ammendments were included. By the way, that constitution you love so much was written by politicians. Übereil OK, 1. I posted someone elses article...in full...so there would be no argument as to their meaning....it is what it is...too long...ok..just read what you want.. 2. I agree, pure democracy doesn't/won't work in the US..except as a principle applied to a representative republic...and believe me, anarchy would not be tolerated... 3. Who are you/she to say I don't understand what the Constitution is  If she considers herself an authority on it, then debate it. I agree that the amendments are part of the "additions" and therefore to that extent, party of the Constitution, as are the 1st ten...and as far as law goes....none should be in place if deemed "unconstitutional"...so I miss her point there..?? 4. I totally disagree that "people" meant white males...what a crock...that is the modern PC interpretation of the document..and she talks about context...?? Case in point....why does everyone not know that in respect to, lets say, race relations, that it is only the white males that get the blame?? Why not acknowledge the actual slaveholders in the US...?? In 1830, 2775 free blacks owned 13,000 slaves, according to U.S. census records. In 1860, 100 free black slaveowners wrote to (President) Jerrerson Davis begging him not to let the North abolish slavery in Louisiana. Ownership of whites by free blacks (Yes Virginia there were white slaves) was such a concern that the Virginia legislature felt they needed to pass a specific "law" against it. (according to American Heritage magazine Mar/Apr 1993). Context.....If blacks admit their past and present "shortcomings" then I will admit mine...the PC answer is to say blacks were slaves and whites were "endentured servants"...what a load of bull.... Oh well, off the subject... sorry...just thought you should know that "all that glitters is not gold" |
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Dec 28, 2009 7:33:38 GMT
@ ss: Very interesting (about the free blacks owning slaves in 1830). The North weren't quite so noble in their intentions, their intentions were far more business-related than freedom-related...  But of course, I suspect most people should know this. |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 28, 2009 9:11:14 GMT
Direct democracy ceased to be practical when sovereign entities grew out of city walls (the internet is the first tool that might theoretically make it possible some day - that is not to say that that would be desirable over all!), hence, very quickly, all democratic principles quickly developped into some form of representative democracy.
That said, the ancient democracies of Athens and Rome also did not encompass 'the people' in the meaning 'anybody living there', but the 'citizens'. To be a citizen, with voting rights, one was a member of a privileged group. In the infancy of democracy, those privileges entailed some significant duties also. (Somehow, these duties seemed to decrease proportionally to the increase of privileges).
So, while the fathers of the American Constitution were wisely unspecific about what 'the pepole' meant to them, I'd wager that their understanding in their time differs from our contemporary understanding.
As to the definition of 'politician', I'd say colloquial understanding is one who has an elected function in any of the three branches of government, whereby 'elected' not necessarily has to mean 'elected by the people'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 28, 2009 10:13:26 GMT
Worth noting also, BTW, that Britain is a Parliamentary Democracy, which is neither a Republic nor a form of direct democracy, but something quite different again. Just sayin' ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Dec 28, 2009 13:34:05 GMT
Well, I would have said that the UK is a constitutional monarchy governed by a parliamentary system. I am saying that because the monarchy is a salient characteristic, notwithstanding its parliamentary restrictions, and the sovereign entity comprises more than England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. (I'm speaking of the crown dependencies and the overseas territories, which are constitutionally somewhat differently tied to the state, but factually (be it nationality) are part of the 'realm') {Leave it to the English to make, respectively keep, something complex by tradition } |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 28, 2009 14:47:10 GMT
Always! ;D
The system of Parliamentary democracy was created by Edward I to limit his own power (Yes, really. Edward wasn't called The Lawmaker for nothing. he invented habeus corpus, too). He seems to have realised that 'The Divine Right of Kings' was looking a bit dicey and that limiting the power somewhat was a good way to stop some serious problems occurring down the line. It's probably thanks to him that we didn't end up going the way of the French...
But digression aside, his system is still, in essence, the one we use today. The people (A lot less of the people then, of course ;D) vote for a council who represent their interests to the King. The council then elect from amongst themselves the person who will lead them, who will be the King's first minister - hence the 'Prime Minister'.
In other words, Britain votes for a parliamentary party, NOT for a PM. This is how a party leader can be overthrown and a new PM take over without an election having to be called as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jan 1, 2010 11:33:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Jan 1, 2010 11:56:48 GMT
|
|
I believe she misses the other alternative...republic..
.com
