understanding goverment by the people

cdestroyer said:
john adams used the term 'representative democracy' in 1794; so did noah webster in 1785; so did st. george tucker in his 1803 edition of blackstone; so did thomas jefferson in 1815. for whatever reason our form of government is still unique....
Click to expand...
I could be mistaken but I think what's unique about it is that the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights clearly define the limits of government. I believe that was something new at the time.
 

cdestroyer said:
Our particular form of democracy is unique, it is probably not suitable for other countries. It is a republic, it is governed by the people, it is laid down in the most basic form in our declaration of independence and constitution, it is watched over by the three powers we set for rules, the presidential, the legaslative, the court and over the years we have modified it to take into account the changing times by vote, by the free expression of the will of the people.yea or nay we all accepted what was voted, if you didnt vote that is your problem yet you still live here freely able to express your opions. I have been to war in uniform, I lived in the sixties and seen the haight, I have had the *&$#$*()$ people tell me things that were there not laws they would not have lived long, It took a long long time and age to understand what it was I fought for!
I have said enough!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
And your point is what?
 
Murrmurr said:
I could be mistaken but I think what's unique about it is that the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights clearly define the limits of government. I believe that was something new at the time.
Click to expand...
So was the separation of powers -- I think. (Not that they're very separate anymore) :( I also think that a federation of the type we have was new although I could be wrong about that, too. When we started out, the federation was so loose it couldn't hold together; hence, the Articles of Confederation were dumped (although the delegates had been sent only to amend them). The question is -- did they overstep the bounds into illegality?
 
Dancing_Queen said:
So was the separation of powers -- I think. (Not that they're very separate anymore) :( I also think that a federation of the type we have was new although I could be wrong about that, too. When we started out, the federation was so loose it couldn't hold together; hence, the Articles of Confederation were dumped (although the delegates had been sent only to amend them). The question is -- did they overstep the bounds into illegality?
Click to expand...
The Founding Fathers did their best to make sure government would never become centralized. Legislators got around that by forming a separate federal entity with each state maintaining their authority. It's gone downhill from there.
 
Murrmurr said:
The Founding Fathers did their best to make sure government would never become centralized. Legislators got around that by forming a separate federal entity with each state maintaining their authority. It's gone downhill from there.
Click to expand...
There's plenty that could use changing starting with the Electoral College. Then, there's the fact that the people in tiny states have a larger voice in the senate per person than people in larger states. And then there's the fact that the House hasn't expanded and so seats (and electoral votes) have been taken from California so that the people in California are in the same position regarding the House as are people in large states regarding the Senate. And then there's the fact that the members of the House choose their constituents rather than vice-versa because of gerrymandering. Etc. Etc.
 
DaveA said:
Does Citizen's United mean anything re: lobbyists running the country?
Click to expand...
It's interesting. It's actually a two-way street. The lobbyists tell the politicians what to do, but the politicians often determine who will lobby them even to the point of seeing to it that their choices (can we say nepotism?) are hired by lobbying companies, including former politicians. In other words, the politicians lobby the lobbyists and the lobbyists lobby the politicians.
 
Dancing_Queen said:
It's interesting. It's actually a two-way street. The lobbyists tell the politicians what to do, but the politicians often determine who will lobby them even to the point of seeing to it that their choices (can we say nepotism?) are hired by lobbying companies, including former politicians. In other words, the politicians lobby the lobbyists and the lobbyists lobby the politicians.
Click to expand...
And nothing of any real value gets done. Aside from money exchanging pockets, that is.
 
JonDouglas said:
Just a quick note: I am sure you all know the U.S. is not a pure democracy. It is a constitutional republic. There's a difference.
Click to expand...
I agree. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic with the benefits of having a Democracy ".....of the people, by the people and for the people," so says Abraham Lincoln 158 years ago.
 
911 said:
I agree. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic with the benefits of having a Democracy ".....of the people, by the people and for the people," so says Abraham Lincoln 158 years ago.
Click to expand...
Of the people, by the people, for the powerful people
 
Gee, it makes me wonder why there is so much changing of voting rules going on in 2021. Is this the will of the people?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top