« Some Animals Are Less Equal Than Others | Main | Tea Party Request »

Good vid, however only someone not really familiar with Stalin can say that dictatorship never existed or can't exist. Stalin, unlike Hitler and many other dictators, was a sole policy maker and everyone in his suite who didn't comprehend that learned their mistake the hard way.

What's really fun is trying to explain those basic principles to a Letterman-Loving Lying Lobotomized Loopy, Loony, Lemming-Like Liberal Leftist Loser.

"B-B-B-But we live in a DEMOCRACY!!"

The public educational system does a lousy job of teaching these basics as well, and the mainstream mass media seems to willingly perpetuate the commonly accepted misunderstandings about our Republican form of government.

I particularly like the part about the political spectrum, and how the Lefties are always trying to offload Fascism on the Right. That's one of the biggest political myths in history, and our own resident trolls here on Moonbattery are pushing it constantly.

When i went to HIGH SCHOOL back in the 70s one of our classrooms had a copy of the US. CONSTITUTION on the wall with VIOD WHERE PROBITETED stamped in big red letters on it and in 8th grade we had to read and understand what the constitution ment how they go and replace it with some stupid PLEDGE TO THE EARTH bull kaka U.S CONSTITUTION YES PLEDGE TO THE EARTH NO

Great video V_K. Each and every time someone in my circle of friends states we're in a democracy, I correct them, we're a constitutional republic.

I think our youth need to be reminded of how our founding fathers were tortured, exiled from their families and faced death to liberate us from the tyranny of the British.

I hope in my lifetime that our constitution isn't completely dismantled. I'd like my nephews to grow up in a free country.

To all those veterans, I salute you. God bless you all.

Our nation was saved by men in uniforms not by men in ties

Rather misleading and incorrect. The US is a Constitutional Republic, however it is also a Representative Liberal Democracy, as are most western states.

Representative Liberal Democracies exist under various constitutional systems: Constitutional Republics (US, France) or Constitutional Monarchies (UK, Holland)

Your friends are correct, Janet & Tony, you do live in a democracy: a constitutional republican, representative liberal democracy! But that's probably too nuanced for your friends

How very Palinesque.

When i I went to HIGH SCHOOL(comma) back in the 70(apostrophe)s(comma) one of our classrooms had a copy of the U(period)S. CONSTITUTION on the wall with (quote)VIOD VOID WHERE PROBITETED PROHIBITED(quote) stamped in big red letters on it(Period) and i In 8th grade we had to read and understand what the constitution ment meant(period) hNow they go and replace it with some stupid (quote)PLEDGE TO THE EARTH(quote) bull kaka. U.S(period) CONSTITUTION(colon) YES (period) PLEDGE TO THE EARTH(colon) NO(period)

21 errors in one 70 word run-on sentence! I think your High School owes you a refund.

Let's try to rewrite that in more conventional English:

When I went to high school, back in the 70's, one of our classrooms had a copy of the U.S. Constitution on the wall with "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED" stamped in big red letters on it. In 8th grade we had to read and understand what the constitution meant. Now they go and replace it with some stupid "Pledge To The Earth" bull kaka.
U.S. CONSTITUTION: YES. PLEDGE TO THE EARTH: NO.

Yeah, he should have added some more ahhhs, ummms, ehhhs, uhhhs, and some version of the word sustain in order to sound even more unintelligible.

Let me as you, do you correct English grammar when someone writes in ebonics?

Your friends are correct, Janet & Tony, you do live in a democracy: a constitutional republican, representative liberal democracy! But that's probably too nuanced for your friends
Posted by: Lunapippistrellus at July 5, 2009 8:22 AM

A Constitutional Republic which has democratically elected representatives. NOT majority rule.

I've known Lefties that argue that it is a democracy because we elect representatives - this argument is presented so as to smudge the difference between a process used to elect representatives of a Constitutional Republic and actual Unlimited Majority rule.

Too nuanced for you, Lunapippistrellus?

A Constitutional Republic which has democratically elected representatives is a democracy - unless you choose to invent your own definition of the word.

Democracy

1. a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.
2. a state governed in such a way.
3 control of a group by the majority of its members.
Oxford English Dictionary

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
Random House Dictionary

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
American Heritage Dictionary

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
Webster's Revised Dictionary, 1996

1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
1 b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996

Why do you want to deny that the US is a democracy? It seems a strange desire, given the immense authority of "We the people…" which is a good a description of democracy as any.

Let me as you, ? Me let you as me!

do you correct English grammar when someone writes in ebonics? If someone is writing in a different language then the rules of that language would apply. If Spurwing Plover was writing in Palinobonics then I apologize, you betcha!

Can the majority of the American people decide to simply vote away one of the constitutional amendments anytime they want?

The correct answer to that question will tell why we are NOT a democracy.

Like a poster said above you are confusing part of electoral process with the actual form of government.

If we are a democracy as you describe then how is it possible for a president to receive the popular vote ie the majority and still lose the election? What is the purpose of the electoral college if we live in a democracy?

Why do you want to deny that the US is a democracy?

Do you know what the Founding Fathers thought of Democracy as a form of government and why they did their best to make certain that the country be formed as a Constitutional Republic rather than a Democracy?

A Constitutional Republic is a form of government in which the government is limited by constitutional constraints as to what it can do.

from Wikipedia:

"Constitutional Republic

Purpose and scope

John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[1] Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[2] The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify."

Further:

"The United States of America is the oldest existing constitutional republic in the world. According to James Woodburn, in The American Republic and Its Government, "the constitutional republic with its limitations on popular government is clearly involved in the United States Constitution, as seen in the election of the President, the election of the Senate and the appointment of the Supreme Court." That is, the ability of the people to choose officials in government is checked by not allowing them to elect Supreme Court justices-- however in reality, such justices are appointed by the popularly elected president, and approved by the popularly-elected Senate. Woodburn says that in a republic, as distinguished from a democracy, the people are not only checked in choosing officials but also in making laws.[4] A Bill of Rights exists in the U.S. Constitution which protects certain individual rights. The individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights cannot be voted away by the majority of citizens if they wished to oppress a minority who does not agree with the restrictions on liberty that they wish to impose. To eliminate these rights would require government officials overcoming constitutional checks as well as a two-thirds majority vote of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States in order to amend the Constitution."

Lunapippistrellus, if you want to say that the United States is a Democracy in the sense that representatives are elected then yes, a democratic process does elect the representatives. But the difference between a Democracy - as known throughout history as being MAJORITY RULE - and a Constitutional Republic is that a Constitutional Republic, by design, places limits on what can and what cannot be done by the government whereas a Democracy, as a form of government, has no such limitations.

This is why the Framers of the Constitution were adamant that the government they created NOT be a democracy and said so.

Like a poster said above you are confusing part of electoral process with the actual form of government.

Lunapippistrellus isn't confusing part of the electorial process with the actual form of government, son of preacher man. For a long, long time the Left has been doing its best to blank out the Constitutional Republic founding of our country and blur the distinction between it and full-fledged Democracy. If they can do that, they can destroy all constitutional constraints.

Meaning, Lunapippistrellus knows what he is doing. He's trying to confuse other people.

The founders certainly did not found the US as a direct democracy but as a representative democracy. A Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy, as is a Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy like the UK. All modern democracies have formal limitations on the power of governments - the UK's dating back to 1215.

The founders also only permitted property-owning white men to vote for those representatives. That was later recognised (by most) as being an undemocratic restriction, so Amendments 14, 15, 19, 23, 24 & 26 extended suffrage to all citizens. The founders weren't perfect, else there would be no need for amendments.

If you are going to quote Wikipedia as an authority, then please also refer to the article on "Liberal democracy"

Liberal democracy (or constitutional democracy) is the dominant form of democracies in the 21st century. During the Cold War, liberal democracies were contrasted with the Communist People's Republics or "Popular Democracies", which claimed an alternative conception of democracy. Today, constitutional democracies are mostly contrasted with direct democracy and/or participatory democracy. Liberal democracies may take various constitutional forms: they may be republics, as the United States or India or France, or constitutional monarchy, as the United Kingdom or Spain. It may have a presidential system (United States), a parliamentary system (Westminster system, UK and Commonwealth countries), or a hybrid, semi-presidential system (France).

When the founders referred to 'democracy' they were referring to Pure democracy - and usually qualified the word.
Madison: "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"
Hamilton: "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this.

Wikipedia again (Direct Democracy): Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy.

To claim the US is not a democracy is disingenuous. It is a form of democracy and is rightly acknowledged as such by those without some ideological axe to grind.

Can the majority of the American people decide to simply vote away one of the constitutional amendments anytime they want?Yes - at the state level. Does Proposition 8 ring a bell?

Can the majority of the American people decide to simply vote away one of the constitutional amendments anytime they want?Yes - at the state level. Does Proposition 8 ring a bell?

From what I understand, the Proposition, as a political tool, is something that was introduced into politics during the Progressive era and is not something that the Framers of the Constitution ever considered.

That there is such a thing as voting for Propositions has no more bearing on the fact that our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic than any other thing the Progressive era did.

Never-the-less, any Proposition which passes must be Constitutional and will be held unconstitutional if it isn't constitutional. Thus, Majority Rule still doesn't apply.

It is a form of democracy and is rightly acknowledged as such by those without some ideological axe to grind.

What exactly do you think is the "ideological axe to grind" by saying that the United States is a Constitutional Republic?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2009 11:43 AM

That was me.

What exactly do you think is the "ideological axe to grind" by saying that the United States is a Constitutional Republic?

I have no issue with calling the US a Constitutional Republic. It's saying that it's not a democracy that is wrong. That is the claim made by the video and that is repeated by TonyD9 and Janet. Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive, the US is both.

The video chooses one way to categorise forms of government - but it is misleading at best. A better way is to divide governments into Totalitarian and Democratic.

Totalitarian states derive their authority from might and vest in in a small number of people. Their heads of state are either hereditary, theocratic or seize power militarily Democracies derive their authority from the people. Democracies can have many different forms which relate to how the populace is polled or delegates its power and whether the head of state is hereditary and powerless (UK), or elected and executive (US).

I am no fan of direct democracies either, the Constitution, international human rights agreements and conventions such as the Geneva convention are all examples of governments agreeing to limit their powers on certain matters. But it only works if the population at large supports that and holds them accountable. Thus even in the US there have been numerous transgressions of the constitution and international agreements that elected officials have got away with and the population has condoned.

And by the way, taking the fact that there is Proposition voting in some States and trying to imply that this means the system of US government which the Framers of the Constitution created is thus a democracy as opposed to a Constitutional Republic is comparing apples to oranges.

We were talking about the US government.

The States themselves, as Federalism intended, are supposed to be regions of experimentation.

Don't compare apples to oranges.

I see. This has become interesting.

It's saying that it's not a democracy that is wrong.

By which you mean - It is saying that the United States is not a democracy which is wrong.

That's because Democracy, the kind the video is talking about, is unlimited majority rule. Unlimited majority rule is a form of tyranny.

A better way is to divide governments into Totalitarian and Democratic.

I disagree. Both totalitarian government and democratic government (if what we mean by democratic is unlimited majority rule) are by their nature both despotic.

Thus even in the US there have been numerous transgressions of the constitution and international agreements that elected officials have got away with and the population has condoned.

Well, I take issue and disagree with the line of thinking that would condone transgressions of the constitution by using international agreements and this is why:

Elected officials are to uphold the Constitution. Though there is the authority to make Treaties, no elected official has the authority to sign away any constitutional rights.

I suspect that the reason some people are ready to claim that Treaties are the Law of Land no matter what is in them is because some people are quite willing to accomplish their political goals which they can't accomplish through legislation by making treaties. Just a hunch on my part.

Both totalitarian government and democratic government (if what we mean by democratic is unlimited majority rule) are by their nature both despotic. Only if you redefine 'despot' as well. A despot means an individual king, emperor, tyrant or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power. A direct Democracy can become oppressive to its minorities but this is by no means always true.

My comments on Proposition 8 were merely to show that the US does have some degree of direct democracy - and that it can indeed be used to oppress a minority.

Switzerland is the only modern country with anything close to a direct democracy, but even there many decisions are left to elected representatives since it is impractical to have a referendum on every decision. Such decisions are still subject to the Swiss constitution which grants human rights and is very similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So the claim that Direct Democracy inevitably leads to oppression is disproved.

People are ready to claim that Treaties are the Law of Land beause they are:

Article 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Theoretically a treaty could override the constitution. No treaty has ever been found to be in conflict with the constitution. That was one of the things the "Bricker Amendment' was intended to settle.