Yes! [LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
Printable View
Yes! [LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
That's what I put.Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
Constitutional Republic with a federalist system of government, where the lower the level the government, the more democratic it is.
But if you're talking what does the Constitution say, then it would be a republic.
I'm not going to vote or weigh in until we get more votes since I was the creator and obviously want to preach some shit lol
To clarify further though. I want to know if people know what our Founder Fathers had in mind, how and why our government was setup the way it was, what it was called, what they didn't want.. ect.
Its fairly easy to research, as its a subject that isn't contested like the 2nd amendment is... its just forgotten about, and written over in school textbooks.
We are supposed to have a Republic. What we have turned it into is a repugnant hybrid of a republic/democracy, with a unconstitutional behind the scenes monarchy mixed in.
That's a pretty good answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by stevelkinevil
Good clarification here.Quote:
Originally Posted by NMB2
Well, I think (shooting from memory here) that the Founders envisioned a Federalist Republic. We (the citizens) would elect Representatives to stand up for or represent us. This would prevent a "mob rule" mentality that a true democracy would provide.
The House and the Senate are built the way they are for very good reasons. The Senate has 2 members from each State, regardless of the population of the State. So New York and Wyoming both have the same number of Senators. This prevents the most populous States from over-running the lesser populated States. The House is a bit different. There is a House Member for ever X number of citizens in that State (I forget the number). Therefore, New York has more House Members that Wyoming. This keeps thing in balance, so to speak.
The President is the Commander in Chief. He does not propose, write, or create any law or budget. Those are done by the Senate and House (contrary to public belief). Ok, he submits a budget to Congress, but that's a formality and generally disregarded. Remember when Obama's budget proposal got ZERO votes in the Senate? LOL!
States were visualized as individual...well, States. The "Federal Government" would not interfere with most of a States affairs unless it was deemed a National concern of some kind. Of course this has been totally raped and pillaged by the power hungry in Washington and, these days, States are merely pawns of the Federal Gov. The Fed says "Do THIS or you don't get funding for that" so the States go along...sad.
I said in another post "...some democratic institutions...". For example: The citizens of Colorado just voted to legalize the recreational use of pot. That was a ballot issue and voted on by the citizens....not our elected representatives. Frankly, I'd rather that all changes to the Constitution of the State of Colorado be left to the Representatives. Ballot issued muck up the waters so much and the vast majority of voters are so ill-informed....look at the TABOR fiasco. So sad, that was a great thing. Now it's worthless. Thanks Teachers Unions! Our ballot system messed up a great thing there - in other words democracy failed here.
I'm off topic now....
We are a corporate fascist state.
So to answer your question we are "none of the above"
we have a radio ad around he asking the same thing
A Republic is what was envisioned by our founding fathers and the intent outlined by the [final draft of the] Articles of the Constitution. The founding fathers railed against a democracy, referring to it as "tyranny of the majority."
An oligarchy is what we actually have. Primarily because we're all a bunch of pussies and haven't taken it back yet.
As a side note, even our founding fathers could not agree on what it should be, even during the time of the framing of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was a monarchist and actually asked George Washington to be our first King. Thankfully, ol' George refused. Hamilton subsequently dubbed his political party, one of the first two parties, "the Federalist" party, though it was in fact the polar opposite. The other party at the time was then, naturally, dubbed the "Anti-federalist" party, though it did in fact support a Federalist government. Makes sense, right?