Founded by Geniuses; Run by Idiots

[Phatscotty]

Never said there was, had it right from the beginning. It only got confused when I entered the confusion. Now just let me have the last word!

Democratic Republic

[saxitoxin]

Never said there was, had it right from the beginning.

OK, I'll need to administer a verification test before passing you.

Is the U.S. a democracy? (choose one)
(a) yes
(b) no

Is the U.S. a republic? (choose one)
(a) yes
(b) no

If you think the U.S. is a republic, what makes it one? (choose one)
(a) because every single state that's not a monarchy is a republic, including North Korea and Pakistan
(b) because of the Electoral College and Senate Parliamentary Rule 65-B/1801 and a prophecy told by Benjamin Franklin on his death bed that when a crow lays sterile eggs in Lafayette Park then George Washington will rise from the dead and chase the communists out of Rhode Island and I saw a YouTube video posted on abovetopsecret.com showing a crow laying sterile eggs in Lafayette Park; BTW, my prepper group says that crow eggs can be used as a good protein source after TSHTF

answers: A, A, A

[Phatscotty]

Never said there was, had it right from the beginning.

OK, I'll need to administer a verification test before passing you.

Is the U.S. a democracy? (choose one)
(a) yes
(b) no

Is the U.S. a republic? (choose one)
(a) yes
(b) no

If you think the U.S. is a republic, what makes it one? (choose one)
(a) because every single state that's not a monarchy is a republic, including North Korea and Pakistan
(b) because of the Electoral College and Senate Parliamentary Rule 65-B/1801 and a prophecy told by Benjamin Franklin on his death bed that when a crow lays sterile eggs in Lafayette Park then George Washington will rise from the dead and chase the communists out of Rhode Island and I saw a YouTube video posted on abovetopsecret.com showing a crow laying sterile eggs in Lafayette Park

answers: A, A, A

the falcon's heard the falconer!

[tzor]

Republicanism and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

Well they might not be "mutually exclusive" but they are not the same thing. They can run parallel with each other, but it's confusing at times.

In a democracy the people have a direct say in the government. In the United States, the average school board is done through a democratic process; it is put up on the ballot for a vote.

In a republic, the people (and sometimes a subset of the people) choose representatives who have a say in government. In the United States, this can have multiple layers. Under the original Constitution, the people had no "direct" election of Senators (elected by the state legislatures, whose members were directly elected by the people) and the President (elected by the Electoral College whose members were elected by the people) and it is these people who choose and elect judges on the Federal courts (so judges are two steps removed). Today we directly elect senators and members of the Electoral College are legally bound to cast their votes according to the will of the people, but both were caused by attempts to push "democracy" into a framework of a "republic."

In a democracy, the will of the majority is supreme. You can't really have a constitution in a pure democracy, because the process of how government works can be changed by a majority vote. This often results in the "tyranny of the majority" upon the minority. Republics give some layers of protection, but not enough to be really secure. Both systems require eternal vigilance.

[saxitoxin]

In a republic, the people (and sometimes a subset of the people) choose representatives who have a say in government. In the United States, this can have multiple layers. Under the original Constitution, the people had no "direct" election of Senators (elected by the state legislatures, whose members were directly elected by the people) and the President (elected by the Electoral College whose members were elected by the people) and it is these people who choose and elect judges on the Federal courts (so judges are two steps removed). Today we directly elect senators and members of the Electoral College are legally bound to cast their votes according to the will of the people, but both were caused by attempts to push "democracy" into a framework of a "republic."

No, that isn't it at all.

A republic is a state that isn't a monarchy. That's it. It has nothing to do with how elections are organized or what checks on popular excess are created.

A monarchy is a state in which authority is given by a person. A republic is a state in which authority is given by a body of people. (In an aristocratic republic, like Venice, the body is the landowners. In a socialist republic, like the USSR, the body is the membership of the Communist Party. In a democratic republic, like the USA, the body is the mass of the people. In a theocratic republic, like Iran, the body is the clergy.)

There is no such thing as "just a republic." So, yes, the U.S. is a democracy. The U.S. is also a republic. The two terms define totally separate things - just like my LaForza is a car and it is also a 4WD. You don't say "it's part car and part 4WD" or "it's just a 4WD, not a car."

[saxitoxin]

While we're clearing up Bircher historical myths, I'm going to get ahead of the curve and correct the next conspiracy theory that usually follows the "constitutional republic" conspiracy theory (but comes before the Admirality Court one), which is: the 17th Amendment was passed to create "direct democracy."

The 17th Amendment was passed because states with party-split legislatures were unable to appoint Senators for months or years at a time and the Senate was operating with fractional membership as a result. When the constitution was ratified, 1/4 of the states had unicameral legislatures and the rest had weak party systems, so this wasn't an issue in 1790, but it was in 1910. IIRC, Delaware or Vermont at one point went for 4 years without any Senators.

[BigBallinStalin]

While we're clearing up Bircher historical myths, I'm going to get ahead of the curve and correct the next conspiracy theory that usually follows the "constitutional republic" conspiracy theory (but comes before the Admirality Court one), which is: the 17th Amendment was passed to create "direct democracy."

The 17th Amendment was passed because states with party-split legislatures were unable to appoint Senators for months or years at a time and the Senate was operating with fractional membership as a result. When the constitution was ratified, 1/4 of the states had unicameral legislatures and the rest had weak party systems, so this wasn't an issue in 1790, but it was in 1910. IIRC, Delaware or Vermont at one point went for 4 years without any Senators.

How can we know that you're not a Communist sleeper agent?

[tzor]

A republic is a state that isn't a monarchy. That's it. It has nothing to do with how elections are organized or what checks on popular excess are created.

That is the more modern sloppy definition. Wikipedia states the following:

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.

Dictionary.com states: "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."

The Free Dictionary stats:

James Madison, the author of many of the essays included in The Federalist Papers (1787–88), put forward a sophisticated concept of republican government. He explained in Number 10 that a republic must be contrasted with a democracy. In the eighteenth century the term "democracy" meant what is now called a pure or direct democracy, wherein legislation is made by a primary assembly of citizens, as existed in several rural Swiss cantons and in New England towns. In a pure democracy, Madison argued, there is no check on the majority to protect the weaker party or individuals and therefore such democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention," where rights of personal security and property are always in jeopardy.

By a republic, Madison meant a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government. In Number 39 of The Federalist Papers, he returned to this theme, saying that a republic "is a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior." Generally, such leaders as Madison and John Adams believed that republicanism rests on the foundation of a balanced constitution, involving a Separation of Powers and checks and balances.

[tzor]

While we're clearing up Bircher historical myths, I'm going to get ahead of the curve and correct the next conspiracy theory that usually follows the "constitutional republic" conspiracy theory (but comes before the Admirality Court one), which is: the 17th Amendment was passed to create "direct democracy."

There were a lot of reasons for the 17th amendment. The practical result of the amendment was that states no longer had direct representation in the Federal government, especially in terms of treaties. People who vote for Federal representatives (including the Senate) generally put local needs ahead of State sovereignty. The vertical separation of powers under a Federal government were effectively broken as a result of this amendment.

In practical terms ... do you really think the Affordable Care Act would have passed the Senate if the senators had to consider the wrath of the state legislators who are being forced to carry the many unfunded mandates of the new system? Or in decades ago when the Federal Government rammed the "national speed limit" on the states by refusing to give interstate highway money unless they (the states) passed speed limit laws at 55MPH? The 17th Amendment paved the way for the modern national Utopian Leviathan that we have today!

[Phatscotty]

There is such a thing as a Marxist Republic though, right?



btw I am really proud of Saxi and Thor for taking this in such an enlightening direction

[saxitoxin]

A republic is a state that isn't a monarchy. That's it. It has nothing to do with how elections are organized or what checks on popular excess are created.

That is the more modern sloppy definition. Wikipedia states the following:

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, [b]and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited.

right, so what I said then

Saxitoxin said: A republic is a state that isn't a monarchy. That's it. It has nothing to do with how elections are organized or what checks on popular excess are created.
A monarchy is a state in which authority is given by a person. A republic is a state in which authority is given by a body of people.

In Number 39 of The Federalist Papers, he returned to this theme, saying that a republic "is a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people

so, once again, exactly what I said

Saxitoxin said: A republic is a state in which authority is given by a body of people. In a democratic republic, like the USA, the body is the mass of the people.

As long as we're quoting Wikipedia, it bears noting the entry for "Constitutional Republic" was deleted from WP by overwhelming consensus since the only sources that could be located to describe such a term were geocities websites and self-published books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Const ... l_republic. The term is 100% unknown in any legal text, any political science text or any historic U.S. constitutional document.

To reiterate, anyone who says "the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic" has overheard a couple things from John Birch Society pamphlets, which are easily verifiable fiction/urban legend (see my reply to "The notion that the government was a republic came directly from the mouth of Ben Franklin at the end of the Constitutional Convention." here).

The legal theories of a mentally ill candy salesman who got kicked out of the US Naval Academy for refusing to shower after fencing practice - then repeated by a person whose highest level of education was high school (Glen Beck) - are not a basis for rational people to undertake an understanding of the U.S., or any, system of government.

[Phatscotty]

Some dood on Facebook just posted this...

[saxitoxin]

Some dood on Facebook just posted this...

Yes, most patriotic Americans today have learned about their constitution from Facebook memes, from the AM-radio show of a high school graduate or from the History Channel docu-drama that shows right before "ANCIENT ALIENS!"

Very few have actually bothered to read primary source material.

Journal of the Debates of the Constitutional Convention:
805 pages
uses of the phrase "constitutional republic" - 0
http://books.google.com/books/about/Jou ... MOAQAAMAAJ

Federalist Papers
170 pages
uses of the phrase "constitutional republic" - 0
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp

Declaration of Independence
1 page
use of the phrase "constitutional republic"- 0
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

Constitution
7 pages
uses of the phrase "constitutional republic" - 0
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... ution.html



So where did the theory espoused by the Facebook post - which was received via Glenn Beck via Robert Welch - come from? From the Anti-Federalist Papers, the writings of those who opposed the U.S. constitution, thought it was a deeply flawed document and that those who wrote it were Idiots: http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus.txt So, when you support the "constitutional republic" conspiracy theory, remember you're not supporting Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, you're supporting their opponents Samuel Bryan and Robert Yates. You were tricked by people who consider you to be so stupid that you'll never, ever, ever, read the sources they were quoting for yourself to determine they're making it up as they go along.

[Phatscotty]

oh and it was from a Libertarian page. Is it mostly the Libertarians who use the term Constitutional Democracy?

Upon further inspection, the name of the group who published it is "Libertarian Republic!"

[BigBallinStalin]

oh and it was from a Libertarian page. Is it mostly the Libertarians who use the term Constitutional Democracy?

Upon further inspection, the name of the group who published it is "Libertarian Republic!"

Wvery group has its dumbasses.

[Phatscotty]

There seems to have been some confusion on this issue regarding me and what I said. I have never used the term constitutional Republic, not here, probably not ever in my life. I am the first one who said we are a Democratic Republic. The very fact I said that together shows I do not think they are exclusive terms, nor do I think that nor have I ever thought that.

The examples I have shared are not my examples, or my rulings, or my pictures, nor do I support them. I only share them to show where the confusion might be coming from, how they are incorrectly represented sometimes in some places.

Thank you.

and now, a few words from Tom Petty

[saxitoxin]

oh and it was from a Libertarian page. Is it mostly the Libertarians who use

Every strain of American conservatism recently has been infected with Bircher lunacy.

Birchers have spent the last 60 years accusing every single U.S. president - including Reagan - of being a communist sleeper agent about to overthrow the U.S. and usher in a Marxist dictatorship at some point in the next few weeks/months. After 60 years of trying, they finally got that idea to stick with a fairly large segment of the population in 2008. That has, in turn, opened the door to a lot of their other unconventional and universally discredited theories - like "the U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a republic" - getting a hearing they've never before received and seeping out into a wider audience.

Like all cults, the Birchers obfuscate their ideas in more attractive ones. For instance, they oppose the U.S. constitution, but know their target audience doesn't. So they take their arguments against the constitution and declare they're actually arguments in support of the constitution (see the Anti-Federalist / Federalist switcharoo I exampled in my previous post).

[ooge]

oh and it was from a Libertarian page. Is it mostly the Libertarians who use

Every strain of American conservatism recently has been infected with Bircher lunacy.

Birchers have spent the last 60 years accusing every single U.S. president - including Reagan - of being a communist sleeper agent about to overthrow the U.S. and usher in a Marxist dictatorship at some point in the next few weeks/months. After 60 years of trying, they finally got that idea to stick with a fairly large segment of the population in 2008. That has, in turn, opened the door to a lot of their other unconventional and universally discredited theories - like "the U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a republic" - getting a hearing they've never before received and seeping out into a wider audience.

Like all cults, the Birchers obfuscate their ideas in more attractive ones. For instance, they oppose the U.S. constitution, but know their target audience doesn't. So they take their arguments against the constitution and declare they're actually arguments in support of the constitution (see the Anti-Federalist / Federalist switcharoo I exampled in my previous post).

I will add the political parties used to understand to keep the fringe elements of their parties in the attic with the "crazy aunt" The repubs. broke this rule an unleashed the "tea people" on the country.They were warned be careful what you wish for. The "tea people" will behave like "berserkers" attacking friend and foe and the country.

[saxitoxin]

oh and it was from a Libertarian page. Is it mostly the Libertarians who use

Every strain of American conservatism recently has been infected with Bircher lunacy.

Birchers have spent the last 60 years accusing every single U.S. president - including Reagan - of being a communist sleeper agent about to overthrow the U.S. and usher in a Marxist dictatorship at some point in the next few weeks/months. After 60 years of trying, they finally got that idea to stick with a fairly large segment of the population in 2008. That has, in turn, opened the door to a lot of their other unconventional and universally discredited theories - like "the U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a republic" - getting a hearing they've never before received and seeping out into a wider audience.

Like all cults, the Birchers obfuscate their ideas in more attractive ones. For instance, they oppose the U.S. constitution, but know their target audience doesn't. So they take their arguments against the constitution and declare they're actually arguments in support of the constitution (see the Anti-Federalist / Federalist switcharoo I exampled in my previous post).

I will add the political parties used to understand to keep the fringe elements of their parties in the attic with the "crazy aunt" The repubs. broke this rule an unleashed the "tea people" on the country.They were warned be careful what you wish for. The "tea people" will behave like "berserkers" attacking friend and foe and the country.

That's a very, very great point, oogle.

Early-on the Tea Party was an admirable group composed of an entirely different element of society than it is now - a mainstream organization of concerned citizens offering a situational response to a single event or a series of events that they viewed as a hallmark of a directional error in policy. (The arguments about it going on to be funded by special interests and so forth are pretty much non-starters for me, that doesn't strike me as being the case to any high degree.)

However, its early failure resulted in a husk that allowed an entirely different group to move in. I personally observed a founding meeting of a chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus in a major metro area (the dormant and usually inoffensive libertarian branch of the Republican Party that has recently been taken over) several months ago in which the state chairman happily noted she was also state director of the John Birch Society. This particular state chapter has so many members that they will get 10% of the delegate slots in the upcoming RLC convention in Austin.

On these boards during the RNC I was critical of the rigged voting that took place. I now would admit I was wrong. The Republican Party needs to do everything it can to keep these people from getting anywhere near levers of national power, just like the Democrats self-eviscerated their lunatic fringe in 2004. This is less a politics and more a security matter, I hate to say.

[BigBallinStalin]

Don't worry, sax. The Repubs via the American Conservative Union have been working on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/us/po ... =eta1&_r=0

In a draft proposal circulated to defense and transportation industry executives in recent weeks, the union is offering to use its grass-roots organization, annual conference and movement clout to lobby against cuts to federal military and infrastructure spending.

Take THAT, Tea Party!

The American Strength Program also hints at some fundamental tensions within conservatism. The movement’s establishment, including the conservative union, took root in Washington in an when era military spending was sacrosanct and transportation bills regularly marched through Congress with bipartisan support.

But the movement’s vanguard today is a new generation of Tea Party-inspired lawmakers and activists, many of whom arrived in Washington denouncing the infrastructure spending in President Obama’s stimulus program. They are more comfortable with cuts to the Pentagon budget and actively hostile to the earmark spending through which so many road and bridge projects have been financed in the past.

Oh no! Think of the National Security! We must strongly adhere to the path of Crony Capitalism and Democracy in Deficit; otherwise, we all will be... doomed?

Hmm... I'm thinking the crazies will be booted out/ignored even if the status quo is predominantly shaped up/demanded to make budget cuts, reforms, etc.

[saxitoxin]

Don't worry, sax. The Repubs via the American Conservative Union have been working on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/us/po ... =eta1&_r=0

In a draft proposal circulated to defense and transportation industry executives in recent weeks, the union is offering to use its grass-roots organization, annual conference and movement clout to lobby against cuts to federal military and infrastructure spending.

Take THAT, Tea Party!

The American Strength Program also hints at some fundamental tensions within conservatism. The movement’s establishment, including the conservative union, took root in Washington in an when era military spending was sacrosanct and transportation bills regularly marched through Congress with bipartisan support.

But the movement’s vanguard today is a new generation of Tea Party-inspired lawmakers and activists, many of whom arrived in Washington denouncing the infrastructure spending in President Obama’s stimulus program. They are more comfortable with cuts to the Pentagon budget and actively hostile to the earmark spending through which so many road and bridge projects have been financed in the past.

Oh no! Think of the National Security! We must strongly adhere to the path of Crony Capitalism and Democracy in Deficit; otherwise, we all will be... doomed?

Hmm... I'm thinking the crazies will be booted out/ignored even if the status quo is predominantly shaped up/demanded to make budget cuts, reforms, etc.

I frankly hate to be too critical of the RLC / Tea Party because the issues they're championing like civil rights and military withdrawals are some with which I agree. But, increasingly, those seem to just be bait used to go fishing for the rational-minded who would otherwise not sign-on for the tar pits of insanity bubbling beneath the surface.

[BigBallinStalin]

The Republican Party needs to do everything it can to keep these people from getting anywhere near levers of national power, just like the Democrats self-eviscerated their lunatic fringe in 2004. This is less a politics and more a security matter, I hate to say.

I just don't find this to be a convincing excuse for supporting efforts to maintain a status quo (i.e. pro-crony capitalist Repub and Dem. Parties).

Sure, the fringe groups may have some crazy people in them--just as the status quo Parties have their crazy people, but in both cases, they can be ignored and/or shunned and removed. I don't see much of a threat here.

[thegreekdog]

The Republican Party needs to do everything it can to keep these people from getting anywhere near levers of national power, just like the Democrats self-eviscerated their lunatic fringe in 2004. This is less a politics and more a security matter, I hate to say.

I just don't find this to be a convincing excuse for supporting efforts to maintain a status quo (i.e. pro-crony capitalist Repub and Dem. Parties).

Sure, the fringe groups may have some crazy people in them--just as the status quo Parties have their crazy people, but in both cases, they can be ignored and/or shunned and removed. I don't see much of a threat here.

Given that the status quo Republicans and Democrats don't see much of a threat from anti-crony capitalist Republicans and Democrats, I can't imagine why the fringes would be much of a threat at all. Hell, Rand Paul is going to try and fail miserably in 2016 and he's by far the most "radical" "mainstream" Republican.

[Phatscotty]

We just want our government to live within it's means and push our leaders to incorporate Liberty into the issues they debate and make laws on.

and I don't care what name you guys call that.

[BigBallinStalin]

The Republican Party needs to do everything it can to keep these people from getting anywhere near levers of national power, just like the Democrats self-eviscerated their lunatic fringe in 2004. This is less a politics and more a security matter, I hate to say.

I just don't find this to be a convincing excuse for supporting efforts to maintain a status quo (i.e. pro-crony capitalist Repub and Dem. Parties).

Sure, the fringe groups may have some crazy people in them--just as the status quo Parties have their crazy people, but in both cases, they can be ignored and/or shunned and removed. I don't see much of a threat here.

Given that the status quo Republicans and Democrats don't see much of a threat from anti-crony capitalist Republicans and Democrats, I can't imagine why the fringes would be much of a threat at all. Hell, Rand Paul is going to try and fail miserably in 2016 and he's by far the most "radical" "mainstream" Republican.

Well, check out that link... nvm here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/us/po ... =eta1&_r=0

The Republicans do view groups such as the Tea Party and any libertarian-esque mindset as poison to their agenda, so they've been seeking ways of suppressing it within their ranks.

In my opinion, the Republicans do not fear that small minority of crazies (Saxi's depiction of John Birchers), but they are trying their best to resist being forced to change their marketed ideology.