Undemocratic?

With the consent of 3/4ths of the States they would have had the Constitutional authority to secede. Did they acquire that consent under Article V of the US Constitution? All it would have required was a Constitutional Amendment approved by the States in accordance with Article V.

 

Okay. So no one will tell me what a homphobe enabler is. Perhaps no one knows, not even the person who used the phrase.

 

I think "homophobe" is considered to be a disparaging term. Still, I wonder how many here would define "homophobic".

And surely, I've personally met (and/or encountered) thousands of people who promote homophobic thinking/behavior; it isn't rare.

 

We do not agree, I can easily point out many things I feel are horrible about the original Constitution, with all its revisions. The first and foremost is the idiocy about the nation being run by 50 separate states. This is and should be verified in a new constitution, ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE. Safeguards can be put in place without giving states the ability to use prejudice, hatred and bigotry towards it state citizens. Things such as slavery, marriage between blacks and whites and marriage between people of the same sex, have NOT business being decided by idiots in a local state govt.
Secondly, just to name two, the wording of all the "rights and freedoms" is idiotic and outdated. There have been literally thousands and thousands of court battles over what thes things mean. We need to rewrite the entire thing, to produce a contract with its citizens, NOT with states. We need to make clear what "the right to bear arms" means, and on and on and on and on and on and on.

NONE of this can be done by adding and subtracting to what is already a mess. It MUST be eliminated and we must start over from the ground up.

 

Yes, they had that right, if they could support it my might of arms which they were not able to do.

 

It is amazing how few people know what a dictionary is.
Homophobe is not a disparaging term, it is a word with a definite meaning.
ho·mo·phobe
   [hoh-muh-fohb] noun
a person who fears and/or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

 

You are correct! (I 'thought' I knew, but I didn't.) Should have checked the dictionary before I said that.

Even so, I will say that I have seen the word "homophobe" used more negative comments.

 

Democracy means the power in the people. It means the people must decide their will, it is voting directly, and it isn't a silly interpretation.

What is a silly is say that countries like England, France, Germany, Spain or USA are democracies, or have democratic procedures, that is absurd.

And if we want to advance in democracy and civil rights is necessary to give more rights to the LGTB.

 

Is it your contention that elections, wherein people vote directly for their representatives, are not a 'democratic procedure'?

 

Is something like that, but it doesn't make it a democracy. Many dictatorships had "democratic procedures" for example during the dictatorship of Franco in Spain people could vote in referendums, it made this democratic? No. The same goes with the liberal countries of today.

 

We're at least in agreement that the United States is not a democracy.

 

The founders of America rejected democracy and instead choose a republic form of government and they were correct in doing so.

Their belief that the general public is too ill-informed to run the country remains accurate today. Sadly we often find that those we elect are also too ill-informed to run the country as well. Most are elected because they're charismatic and not because of their political knowledge or agenda.

They also opposed the tyranny of a majority over minorities and we see that tyranny being imposed today where direct democarcy does exist. We see many holding the position that discrimination under the law is accepable as long as 51% of the voters approve it. We see those that believe religious beliefs should be imposed on the entire population so long as they can secure 51% of the vote. Infringments on the unalienable Rights of the Individual should never be allowed based upon a democratic vote where the majority rules.

 

This is dead-on.

Unfortunately many of the people who are angry with the democratic implementation of restrictions on gay marriage are thrilled with a democratic or semi-democratic implementation of things like universal healthcare, welfare programs, taxes on the rich, etc.

 

Personally, I tend to believe that anyone who hates or fears someone because of their sexual orientation is foolish, bigoted and ignorant, but,that is just me.

 

America is not a democracy, it is a republic. This means we elect officials to run the Government. WE do not run the govt, our elected officials do.

 

The USA is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, duhhhhhhh, why does no one know that??????????????????

 

The United States government is a republican government but the States are both republics and democracies. The People can directly enact legislation at the State level and can rightfully be called democratic in this regard. They also have legislatures which are a republican form of government.

The Federal government is purely a republican form of government. The People cannot propose or enact any federal laws nor can they revise the US Constitution. The US Constitution is controlled by the States and all federal legislation is controlled by representatives in Congress.

The State government is the government of the People and not the Federal government which is a government of the States.

Where we see problems is when the Federal government intervenes directly in the affairs of the People. While it should protect the Rights of the People universally in all of the States it should not be involved directly in the affairs of the People. It was never designed to do this and there is no Constitutional authority for direct intervention in the affairs of the People included in any of the enumerated powers for the Federal government.

 

You NAILED it!! That was an awesome explanation of how government fits into people's lives in America!

 

Not one single state constitution mentions the words DEMOCRATIC or DEMOCRACY. By the way, the concept of states having any rights other than those of AMERICA is stupid, ignorant, outdated and worthless in modern times. Not a single state has the power, money or ability to handle itself in the world theater.

 

Whether the State Constitutions mention Democracy or Republic is irrelevant. Californina and Texas were both independent Republics before becoming States and California, as I recall, if it were an independent nation would be the 7th largest economy in the world.

What is stupid and ignorant is the belief that the States don't have the Constitutional authority to dissolve the United States under Article V which certainly grants the States that authority and which cannot be blocked by Congress.

I can image the situation where the US Congress creates so much debt that it is literally driving the nation into bankruptcy. The States could in such a case decided to dissolve the United States and establish independent countries either based upon single States or new unions of several States. This would leave those holding the US debt holding an empty bag as no States would assume responsibility for the US debt. While unlikely it is certainly within the scope of possibility.

This belief that the individual States can't live without the US government is false. The States are only joined under the Constitution because it is currently better than being on their own. Congress can easily destroy the advantages of being a single union of States in which case it would make more sense for the States to disband the Union.

 

Since we completely and totally disagree on everything above, and since you are a Libertarian, and I am a Centrist, we really have no meeting ground to maintain a discussion.

 

Centrist have a one dimension perspective of politics (i.e. liberal v conservative) and it is true that a person that understands that not only is there liberal v conservative but also authoritarian v non-authoritarian would have a hard time communicating.

Fortunately for me the United States was founded by libertarians.

 

I believe the contrary. The people is prepared to vote and decide. And how more participate, more informed are.

The system chosen, that is the same in every liberal democracy only had a goal. Reduce the power of the people, and to continue mantaining the power. The founders had fear to democracy, for a simple reason, because with democracy they, the rich, and power people would lose power, because they should have to share it with much more people.

The tyranny of a majority is absurd. And we see many discriminations done by the "elite", so it is much better that the majority decide, that a minority decide what is best for the majority.

I am against the actual systems because are plutocracies, or particracies, system no democratic close to dictatorship, for not saying that are a dictatorship. I don't see almost difference between our today regimes, and the URSS or other dictatorial systems, only that they had more violent methods.

 

USA is what is called a representative democracy, a fallacy. But it is the name that usually is called in politics to that organization.

Republic is a system where is chosen a president of the Republic. And this system can be more democratic or less.

For example, the Republic of Sweeden is more democratic than USA.

 

Actually the United States is a Constitutional Republic where the organization of government, it's delegate roles and responsibilities, and protections for the Rights of the People are all contained within the Constitution. The US Constitution is a contract between the States where the States agreed to delegate certain roles and responsibilities to the US government and to also ensure that certain Rights are universally protected throughout all of the States.

As a contract the Federal government is only authorized to do that which the contract expressly grants it authority to do. I have often used the example of a person taking their car to a shop to have a brake job done. The shop is authorized to perform the work expressly stated in the contract to repair the brakes and can even subcontract some of that work, such as turning the rotors, to another shop and the individual is required to pay for that work. The shop is not authorized to overhaul the engine as that is not covered by the contract regardless of how much the engine needs it. If the US government, like the automotive repair shop, wants to address more than that which is authorized by the contract (US Constitution) then it needs to have the contract (US Constitution) amended to authorize the additional work

This has not been happening as Congress merely ignores the fact that they have no Constitutional authority to do much of what they do.