If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

I think people aren't as aware of what is going on on the other side.

The HR department where I worked recieved many thousands of resumes per week while I was there. Even so, most of our hires came from recruiting trips to universities where we found candidates graduating with science degrees. The idea of letting people walk in and apply just wasn't possible. Many companies choose not to have HR departments or management of a size that can handle having people walk in. And, they are working to find the most effective way to find those they need, as it is expensive.

Buying a job from a headhunter on a payment schedule may seem expensive, but it doesn't even slightly make you a slave.

 

Being a constitutional republic does't say how our decisions are made or how our leaders and representatives are selected. All it says is SOME of what the framework looks like.

 

Democracy says we vote on everything not that we have a constitution.

Democratically electing some government officials does not mean the country is a democracy. We don't vote on rights we don't hold on policy.

You want democracy that's Venezuela.

 

LOL.

Whether or not there is a god makes little difference at all when it comes to rights. Our rights are devined by all by examination of the nature of man. That nature has been examined by rulers and philosophers through the ages, including those focused on religion - and by those who wrote our declaration of independence.

The Bible doesn't give direction on how to do that or what the result should be. It does call out that the nature of man is inherently faulty. And, I think we can all agree that the nature of man does have faults, including what is called out in Genesis.

There is much about the Bible that I've praised on this board. It provides a standard that would be difficult for us to each live up to. People don't need to believe the god of the Bible exists to benefit from that philosophy.

 

Democracy doesn't mean no constitution.

And, we DO vote on everything - we just do most of it through elected representatives, because the nation as a whole is far too large for a full election on everything. Even individual states are far too large for direct democracy on all decisions.

We also do not have methods of informing the public and of discussion and compromise that would work for a body of the size of the US or any state. We have committees on issues such as defense, economics, food, medicine, etc., because Congress itself is too large to become expert, form the compromises necessary to meet a wide audience, form decisions, etc..

There are almost zero direct democracies in the world. And, their names are hardly recognizable.

 

dupe

 

Never said it did, but that's an adorable strawman.

I couldn't possibly care less about your petty quibbles with religion.

 

I'm not arguing about what democracy means. I'm arguing that were constitutional republic not a democracy.

 

That wasn't a strawman.

The point was that we're all on the same side wrt rights.

I'm not ready to concede rights as being inherently religious, as that seems to lead toward the idea that we can adjudicate various amendments on the basis of religion or religious precepts. After all, if some right of mine came from the god of the Bible then the limits placed by the god of the bible would surely apply to me - wouldn't they?

It's not rare that we face rights trumped by religion.

 

In what fantasy land? Not one representative has me asked my opinion on ****.

You cant be living in america, because in america, we do not get to vote on health care, or covid rules or anything else.

What you are saying is that we gave up our rights to the representatives. You cant have it both ways, either you vote on everything or they do, your opinion be damned UNLESS you can prove referendums were out for us to vote on it, but you know you cant.

We didnt get to vote on anything above the 10 amendments and most people didnt get the chance to vote on them ffs

 

Political science would say we are a democratic republic.

Being a republic doesn't say how our decisions are made or how our leaders are chosen.

Rome was a republic.

 

Yes, our founding documents were not created by the same methods that were specified in those documents. It was new.

We vote for representatives. That doesn't mean it isn't a democracy.

 

Again they are synonyms...https://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/unalienable.html

The 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the states. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xiv/clauses/701

The only position I am showing not serious is yours.

 

It most certainly does, well the flounders said it was a creator, you claiming they did not know what they were talking about?

 

Doesnt do much good to give you people information does it.

We know exactly what the 14th was used for!

Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed: November 2nd, 1887

Precedential Status: Precedential

Citations: 123 U.S. 131, 8 S. Ct. 22, 31 L. Ed. 80, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2159

Docket Number: Unknown

Supreme Court Database ID: 1887-022

123 U.S. 131 (1887)
SPIES v. ILLINOIS.
Supreme Court of United States.

Argued October 27, 28, 1887. Decided November 2, 1887.
................................
In the present case we have had the benefit of argument in support of the application, and while counsel have not deemed it their duty to go fully into the merits of the Federal questions they suggest, they have shown us distinctly what the decisions were of which they complain, and how the questions arose. In this way we are able to determine as a court in session whether the errors alleged are such as to justify us in bringing the case here for review.

We proceed, then, to consider what the questions are on which, if it exists at all, our jurisdiction depends. They are thus stated in the opening brief of counsel for petitioners:

*165 "First. Petitioners challenged the validity of the statute of Illinois, under and pursuant to which the trial jury was selected and empanelled, on the ground of repugnancy to the Constitution of the United States, and the state court sustained the validity of the statute.

"Second. Petitioners asserted and claimed, under the Constitution of the United States, the right, privilege, and immunity of trial by an impartial jury, and the decision of the state court was against the right, privilege, and immunity so asserted and claimed.

"Third. The State of Illinois made, and the state court enforced against petitioners, a law (the aforesaid statute) whereby the privileges and immunities of petitioners, as citizens of the United States, were abridged, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

"Fourth. Upon their trial for a capital offence, petitioners were compelled by the state court to be witnesses against themselves, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States which declare that `no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,' and that `no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.'

"Fifth. That by the action of the state court in said trial petitioners were denied `the equal protection of the laws,' contrary to the guaranty of the said Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution."

The particular provisions of the Constitution of the United States on which counsel rely are found in Articles IV, V, VI, and XIV of the Amendments, as follows:

"Art. IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

"Art. V. No person ... shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."

"Art. VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have *166 been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law."

"Art. XIV, § 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."

That the first ten Articles of Amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the National Government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247; Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469, 552; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410, 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91; Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 475, 479; Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321, 325; The Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552; Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294, 296; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 101; Kelly v. Pittsburg, 104 U.S. 78; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265.

It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights, —common law rights of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments as limitations on power only apply to the Federal Government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power."

It is also contended that the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that no State shall deprive "any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a State shall *167 be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.

The objections are in brief, 1, that a statute of the State as construed by the court deprived the petitioners of a trial by an impartial jury; and, 2, that Spies was compelled to give evidence against himself. Before considering whether the Constitution of the United States has the effect which is claimed, it is proper to inquire whether the Federal questions relied on in fact do arise on the face of this record.

The statute to which objection is made was approved March 12, 1874, and has been in force since July 1 of that year. Hurd's Rev. Stat. Ill. 1885, p. 752, c. 78, § 14. It is as follows: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/92032/spies-v-illinois/

14th?
Sorry will,
They were fresh out of democracy and representation and that lake dried up to a dust bed about 1868!





If it were to mean the feds only that preamble would have say WE THE FEDS, or for the states, WE THE STATES, but it does not it says WE THE PEOPLE! I am a people! It went all the way to me BEFORE they used word salad to buffalo everyone to hijack and oppress our 'Reserved Rights' with the 14th amendment as I have posted once again.

 

Seemed like it was but I'll let it go.

I don't know why you would I'm not arguing that they are

I don't care about the religious crap

 

then I would get my money back from whoever taught you political science. We aren't a democratic republic. We are a constitutional republic.

the method how are you select government officials does not determine what the country is.

La-dee-da. The United States is a constitutional republic.

 

I probably agree with you on a lot!

 

Religion has nothing to do with it. The founders just fought a war to g away from religious persicution, they were likely deists themselves.

Creator is a concept.

 

FFS your google broke? Consider 'readingmore'

Legal Dictionary
Constitutional Republic

Definition of Constitutional Republic
Noun

1. A form of government in which officials are elected by citizens to lead them as directed by their country’s constitution.

Origin

6th to 8th centuries B.C. Noted by Aristotle

What is a Constitutional Republic
A constitutional republic is a form of government in which the head of the state, as well as other officials, are elected by the country’s citizens to represent them. Those representatives must then follow the rules of that country’s constitution in governing their people. Like the U.S. government, a constitutional republic may consist of three branches – executive, judicial, and legislative – which divide the power of the government so that no one branch becomes too powerful.

A country is considered constitutional republic if:

• It has a constitution that limits the government’s power
  
• The citizens choose their own heads of state and other governmental officials

Of course, while this is how a constitutional republic is supposed to work, in practice, it is not always run this way. Some republics are governed by constitutions that can be ignored by the head(s) of state.

The types of officials that Americans can directly elect include council members, state representatives, governors, and senators. Certain officials, like mayors, may not be directly elected. For instance, the president is indirectly elected by the Electoral College. The president can then choose certain other officials, such as Supreme Court justices, however the legislative branch must confirm whomsoever he nominates to that position.

Constitutional Republic vs. Democracy

Some believe that the United States is a democracy, but it is actually the perfect example of a constitutional republic. A pure democracy would be a form of government in which the leaders, while elected by the people, are not constrained by a constitution as to its actions. In a republic, however, elected officials cannot take away or violate certain rights of the people. The Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in 1892 and adopted by Congress in 1942 as the official pledge, even makes reference to the fact that the U.S. is a republic:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” [emphasis added]

https://legaldictionary.net/constitutional-republic/

 

Obviously, you've never been in one of those contracts. You work for a time (sometimes specified, sometimes not) and are not covered with the benefits of regular employees. You do the same work, but for a reduced wage and someone else lives off your sweat. Like I said, you thrive on semantics.

 

You are foolish. If I walk into court with ONE legal precedent with a court ruling defining a word and you walk into court with 100 layman dictionaries, you would lose. Period. You may be sincere in your beliefs, but you are sincerely wrong and what you believe simply is not factual no matter how many posts you post to disagree. Ask a lawyer.

 

Right the fact that we are a constitutional republic means we aren't a democracy. These are rights you and I don't get to vote on. They are established before your great grand parents were born.

If we could vote on them they wouldn't be rights and we wouldn't have a constitution

The fact that we use the Democratic process to select Government officials doesn't mean we don't have a constitution or a judiciary.

We should never implement democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. That is tyranny.

 

There are various kinds of such contracts. They are not all the same.

Also your issue could be with your employer, not the headhunter. Your status with the company could be different than that of other employees - exempt vs. nonexempt, temp, etc. And, these designtions do get abused. There hav been successful lawsuits against cmpanies that hire "temp" employees (with few benefits) and then keep them working full time forever without full benefits. Also, most companies with salaried employees also have employees paid by piece or hour while working full time permanent positions, which is legal, and there are benefits that may not be equal as well.

There have been numerous court cases over how corproations employ and compensate employees.

Of course, you may have signed a really bad head hunter contract, too.

 

I no longer work for the company, but the only way in the door is via an employment agency. A lot of what corporations do, and you are admitting it, is circumventing the law. It is still slavery and in many cases, corporations are able to bend and skirt the law. The net result is we have slavery. You're playing semantics. As consumers, Americans have no problem purchasing products in countries that employ slave labor. Out of sight, out of mind. You will purchase what is the best value for you in the stores. Do you look to see where it's made? Even if the product came from a country that used young children working in a sweat shop, you (like everyone else) would never give that aspect of it a second thought.

Slavery really is a non-sequitir in this discussion, except that it is a reality. Those who harp on American slavery in a vain attempt to avoid the presuppositional principle of Creator granted Rights are simply looking for converts to a cause that is antithetical to our country's foundational principles.