Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 56716 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 210 of 611

Thread: Socialism

  1. #176
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    I find this claim bizarre, even for you. Defend or retract, man!

    Any legislation that can be conceived--or any Constitutional amendment that citizens or legislators can think up--can be voted on. I'm aware of no restrictions on what may or may not be proposed and voted on. Nor, do I suspect, do you.

    Tom
    As far as legislation goes, you have SCOTUS to say no, you can't. As far as Amendments, the 2/3 majority makes it impossible at this time.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  2. #177
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    It was a big place. 13 separate colonies. 1,000 miles of coastline. That's very very big, considering the transportation technology of the day.

    (Roughly 4 times the size of the UK. )


    Tom
    So, you agree, Madison and the Framers were correct, it was unworkable in the US of A.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  3. #178
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,471

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    As far as legislation goes, you have SCOTUS to say no, you can't.
    Wrong. SCOTUS can only rule after the legislation has been passed. They cannot prevent any legislation from being proposed, voted on, or passed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    As far as Amendments, the 2/3 majority makes it impossible at this time.
    A 2/3 majority vote in the legislature is not the only way an amendment can be passed. A national convention can be called by 2/3 of all state legislatures.

    Yes, it is difficult. But nothing in the system prevents the attempt, or prevents its success. After all, it has been done 17 times since the Constitution was written, as recently as 1989.

    So, no limits on what we (i.e. our elected representatives) can vote for in the U.S.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  4. #179
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,471

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    So, you agree, Madison and the Framers were correct, it was unworkable in the US of A.
    No. I agree that Madison thought that it was unworkable in the U.S. I'm undecided on the matter.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  5. #180
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    What is the difference between that and a Parliamentary Democracy?
    Your house of Commons is democratically elected, the House of Lords is not, and the head of state is hereditary. You briefly had a republic in the 19th century, but couldn't keep it up.

  6. #181
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Please explain.



    In terms of distinguishing it from a democracy, direct or representive.



    True. He wanted a democratic republic, a type of republic, such as he helped conceive.

    You cannot define a republic as merely a big democracy, lots of people, and representatives to make it practical. Because even with representatives , the worst features of democracy are not touched, much less avoided, except for some extremes of impracticablity.

    In a democracy:

    1. Everybody votes
    2. There is no limit as to what they can vote on.

    In the USA, a democratic republic:

    1. Everybody votes for a representative to vote for them
    2. There are hard and fast limits as to what the representatives can vote on. At least in the USA.

    A democratic republic is not a mere democracy, with representatives. That would look like this:

    1. everybody votes for a representative to vote for them, but
    2. There is no limit as to what they can vote on.

    So the difference is in the limits, not in the fact that there are representatives. Insisting that the representives are the defining characteristic of a government is like saying a boat trailer is a car because both have wheels.

    In a democracy, representative or not, there is no limit as to what the people can vote on. In the American republic there is. No way, shape or form, neither logically, historically, nor most importantly, in the understanding of the drafters of the Constitution, does "democracy" connote the slightest limit on what the voters, citizen or representative, can vote on; whereas an American style republic does; limits on the power of the demos are the essence of the American republic.



    Had every Athenian assembly been made up of representatives, each a Socrates, representing the Athenian citizens, themselves every one a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

    A mob of representatives of a mob is a mob. Democracy throughout.
    You conceded that there is more than one kind of republic, but can't imagine that there is more than one kind of democracy. Madison opposed direct democracy, but wanted representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic. You can split hairs all day long, but none of the founders wanted America to be ruled by something like the House of Lords.

  7. #182
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    You can split hairs all day long, but none of the founders wanted America to be ruled by something like the House of Lords.
    Eh?
    The Framers were well aware that the UK parliament had elected MPs in the commons as well as the Lords.
    What they created was an equivalent to the Lords in an unelected upper house.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #183
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    25,790

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    I find this claim bizarre, even for you. Defend or retract, man!

    Any legislation that can be conceived--or any Constitutional amendment that citizens or legislators can think up--can be voted on. I'm aware of no restrictions on what may or may not be proposed and voted on. Nor, do I suspect, do you.

    Tom
    Hey! While you're there, remember to ask them what socialism can do that liberal democracy can't.
    If Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, there will be a new Russia.

    -- Dmytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine

  9. #184
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    25,790

    Default Re: Socialism

    [QUOTE=johnw;6705174]You conceded that there is more than one kind of republic, but can't imagine that there is more than one kind of democracy. [quote]

    If there is, the USA isn't it.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Madison opposed direct democracy, but wanted representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic.
    Which is a republic. What does the republic part mean, in your understanding?

    I ask again, what is the difference, in terms of the inherent defects of mob rule, between a direct and a representative democracy? Do you take him for such a fool? Can you imagine a different kind of representative democracy, without Constitutional limits on its power? The people of the time could -- that's why they insisted on a Bill of Rights. Madison was opposed (though he later gave in), precisely because he thought the limits were inherent in the design of the republic before any representatives were even elected. The demos is already prohibited from voting on anything but their choice of representatives, and the representatives and prohibited from voting on many things. A democracy with representatives has no feature to cure the defects of democracy without representatives.

    The framers obviously thought differently. If they had believed that all that was necessary was representatives, they could have said so, and the republic would have been drastically different; but they didn't, and it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    You can split hairs all day long, but none of the founders wanted America to be ruled by something like the House of Lords.
    And to be quite sure, not something like the Athenian assembly.

    The Bill of Rights is splitting hairs? Limited government vs. unlimited government is splitting hairs?
    If Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, there will be a new Russia.

    -- Dmytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine

  10. #185
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,471

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    The demos is already prohibited from voting on anything but their choice of representatives, and the representatives and prohibited from voting on many things.
    Not true. This is the same claim I challenged earlier, which you could not defend then. Can you defend it now? (I'll save you some time: no, you can't. Because it's incorrect).

    First, many states in the U.S. allow direct voter referendums on issues. You know, voters voting on things other than their choice of representatives. Other states allow citizens to propose, and vote on, laws and constitutional amendments directly.

    The other part of your claim is also incorrect--there is no inherent feature in the structure of U.S. government that limits what elected representatives may propose, and vote on.

    How are you getting this so wrong, OR? It's easy stuff to understand.

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 08-06-2022 at 06:17 AM.
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  11. #186
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post

    Which is a republic. What does the republic part mean, in your understanding?
    I posed that question above, but no one answered it.
    What is the difference between a government calling itself a "Republic" that has an elected lower house, and an unelected upper house, and our Parliamentary Democracy, which has an elected lower house and an unelected upper house?
    Is it that a republic can elect a Skidmark as Head of Stater and give him the power to harm the State that he heads, whilst a constitutional monarchy's Head of State is subservient to the decisions of their parliament, and may only very rarely withhold assent.
    I ask again, what is the difference, in terms of the inherent defects of mob rule, between a direct and a representative democracy?
    Edmund Burke answered that question in 1774.
    Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect.
    https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

    Edited to add.
    I missed John's brief reply in post #180, which suggests that the ability to elect a Skidmark as Head of Stater and give him the power to harm the State that he heads, whilst a constitutional monarchy's Head of State is subservient to the decisions of their parliament is the only difference.
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 08-06-2022 at 05:57 AM.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  12. #187
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    62,252

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Hey, maybe now we can have a 37-page argument about the precise definition of 'democracy'. What fun!
    Guys, I was being sarcastic! 76 posts later, you appear to have taken it as an instruction!
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  13. #188
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    [QUOTE=Osborne Russell;6705284][QUOTE=johnw;6705174]You conceded that there is more than one kind of republic, but can't imagine that there is more than one kind of democracy.

    If there is, the USA isn't it.



    Which is a republic. What does the republic part mean, in your understanding?

    I ask again, what is the difference, in terms of the inherent defects of mob rule, between a direct and a representative democracy? Do you take him for such a fool? Can you imagine a different kind of representative democracy, without Constitutional limits on its power? The people of the time could -- that's why they insisted on a Bill of Rights. Madison was opposed (though he later gave in), precisely because he thought the limits were inherent in the design of the republic before any representatives were even elected. The demos is already prohibited from voting on anything but their choice of representatives, and the representatives and prohibited from voting on many things. A democracy with representatives has no feature to cure the defects of democracy without representatives.

    The framers obviously thought differently. If they had believed that all that was necessary was representatives, they could have said so, and the republic would have been drastically different; but they didn't, and it isn't.



    And to be quite sure, not something like the Athenian assembly.

    The Bill of Rights is splitting hairs? Limited government vs. unlimited government is splitting hairs?
    Now you're pretending I've said things I haven't. I think you know what my point is, but you've avoided addressing it.

  14. #189
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I posed that question above, but no one answered it.
    What is the difference between a government calling itself a "Republic" that has an elected lower house, and an unelected upper house, and our Parliamentary Democracy, which has an elected lower house and an unelected upper house?
    Is it that a republic can elect a Skidmark as Head of Stater and give him the power to harm the State that he heads, whilst a constitutional monarchy's Head of State is subservient to the decisions of their parliament, and may only very rarely withhold assent.
    Edmund Burke answered that question in 1774.
    https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

    Edited to add.
    I missed John's brief reply in post #180, which suggests that the ability to elect a Skidmark as Head of Stater and give him the power to harm the State that he heads, whilst a constitutional monarchy's Head of State is subservient to the decisions of their parliament is the only difference.
    I don't say it's the only difference, but I certainly admire your ability to get rid of a bad leader expeditiously.

    In terms of how the British rule themselves, the difference between your republic and your restored monarchy was the head of state. Or have I got my history wrong?

  15. #190
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,730

    Default Re: Socialism

    Several of the US framers did favor a republic with very limited voting rights . . .

    but if theirs had been a popular position, they would have at least been able to include the word "republic" in the constitution.

    (it does appear one time in a minor way)

    But they were not able to do that.

    The Articles of Confederation were more democratic than the Constitution

  16. #191
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I don't say it's the only difference, but I certainly admire your ability to get rid of a bad leader expeditiously.

    In terms of how the British rule themselves, the difference between your republic and your restored monarchy was the head of state. Or have I got my history wrong?
    You got that bit right. When Cromwell, AKA The Lord Protector, fell off the twig they nominated his son to replace him, Parliament had degenerated into a shambles as well. Son Richard was not up to the job, so it was decided To bring a Stuart monarch back.
    However, that went so well that we threw the Stuarts out and invited William of Orange and his wife Mary Stuart to take over, also passing an Act, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_o...ons_of_the_Act which set out many provisions echoed in your Constitution.

    So what other differences can you enumerate?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  17. #192
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Guys, I was being sarcastic! 76 posts later, you appear to have taken it as an instruction!
    You're not the boss of us!

  18. #193
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    You got that bit right. When Cromwell, AKA The Lord Protector, fell off the twig they nominated his son to replace him, Parliament had degenerated into a shambles as well. Son Richard was not up to the job, so it was decided To bring a Stuart monarch back.
    However, that went so well that we threw the Stuarts out and invited William of Orange and his wife Mary Stuart to take over, also passing an Act, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_o...ons_of_the_Act which set out many provisions echoed in your Constitution.

    So what other differences can you enumerate?
    Why is that my problem? I regard both your system and ours as forms of liberal democracy.

  19. #194
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Why is that my problem? I regard both your system and ours as forms of liberal democracy.
    I got the impression from this
    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I don't say it's the only difference, but I certainly admire your ability to get rid of a bad leader expeditiously.
    that you knew of others, and I am asking anyone who will listen (only yourself so far) what the differences may be.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  20. #195
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I got the impression from this


    that you knew of others, and I am asking anyone who will listen (only yourself so far) what the differences may be.
    I actually think your system functions as a republic with a vestigial monarchy.

  21. #196
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I actually think your system functions as a republic with a vestigial monarchy.
    Damning a Constitutional Monarchy with faint praise.
    In The English Constitution, British political theorist Walter Bagehot identified three main political rights which a constitutional monarch may freely exercise: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn.
    <snip>
    In the United Kingdom, a frequent debate centres on when it is appropriate for a British monarch to act. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favour of a partisan goal, while some political scientists champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians. For instance, the monarch of the United Kingdom can theoretically exercise an absolute veto over legislation by withholding royal assent. However, no monarch has done so since 1708, and it is widely believed that this and many of the monarch's other political powers are lapsed powers.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...nal_monarchies
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  22. #197
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    62,252

    Default Re: Socialism

    Definitely vestigial. Vestigial is not at all a bad thing.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  23. #198
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    As more of the monarchy's powers lapse, it becomes more vestigial. Isn't that better than Charles I?

  24. #199
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by sandtown View Post
    Several of the US framers did favor a republic with very limited voting rights . . .

    but if theirs had been a popular position, they would have at least been able to include the word "republic" in the constitution.

    (it does appear one time in a minor way)

    But they were not able to do that.

    The Articles of Confederation were more democratic than the Constitution
    The Articles didn't work very well, but that's because they made the central government impotent. It couldn't collect taxes or regulate trade between the states, so there wasn't much point in it existing.

  25. #200
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,730

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The Articles didn't work very well, but that's because they made the central government impotent. It couldn't collect taxes or regulate trade between the states, so there wasn't much point in it existing.
    You ducked the main point of my post . . .

    Study up on the Anti-Federalists - they too were founders

  26. #201
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    As more of the monarchy's powers lapse, it becomes more vestigial. Isn't that better than Charles I?
    Anything was better than the Stuart dynasty. A German king without a word of English was better than the Stuarts.

    Vestigial or useful, at least it fills the space that could be filled by a total incompetent aerosol. That has to be a plus.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  27. #202
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    25,790

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Why is that my problem? I regard both your system and ours as forms of liberal democracy.
    Are GB and the USA both republics? One, not the other? Neither? What's the diff?
    If Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, there will be a new Russia.

    -- Dmytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine

  28. #203
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,471

    Default Re: Socialism

    Still waiting, OR...

    The demos is already prohibited from voting on anything but their choice of representatives, and the representatives and prohibited from voting on many things.
    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Not true. This is the same claim I challenged earlier, which you could not defend then. Can you defend it now? (I'll save you some time: no, you can't. Because it's incorrect).

    First, many states in the U.S. allow direct voter referendums on issues. You know, voters voting on things other than their choice of representatives. Other states allow citizens to propose, and vote on, laws and constitutional amendments directly.

    The other part of your claim is also incorrect--there is no inherent feature in the structure of U.S. government that limits what elected representatives may propose, and vote on.

    How are you getting this so wrong, OR? It's easy stuff to understand.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  29. #204
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Still waiting, OR...
    Already answered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    As far as legislation goes, you have SCOTUS to say no, you can't. As far as Amendments, the 2/3 majority makes it impossible at this time.
    Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures.[1] To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states, a process utilized only once thus far in American history with the 1933 ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment.[2]
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  30. #205
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Are GB and the USA both republics? One, not the other? Neither? What's the diff?
    I, too, am waiting for an answer to what makes the US a republic, apart from the ability to elect a Skidmark as Head of State that is.

    We are a Constitutional Monarchy, not a republic.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  31. #206
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,019

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by sandtown View Post
    You ducked the main point of my post . . .

    Study up on the Anti-Federalists - they too were founders
    Sorry I can't always give you the attention you crave, but I'm under no obligation to respond to something I did not take issue with.

  32. #207
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    25,790

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Now you're pretending I've said things I haven't. I think you know what my point is, but you've avoided addressing it.
    No, I really don't. As I understand the logic:

    1. A democracy can be direct or representative.
    2. The USA has representative democracy.
    3. Therefore the USA is a democracy, not a republic.
    If Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, there will be a new Russia.

    -- Dmytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine

  33. #208
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,471

    Default Re: Socialism

    Still waiting, OR...
    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Already answered.
    As far as legislation goes, you have SCOTUS to say no, you can't. As far as Amendments, the 2/3 majority makes it impossible at this time.
    But answered incorrectly.

    Nothing in what you posted suggests any inherent limits for what legislators or voters can propose for a vote, and then vote on. "Impossible at this time" (which I don't accept as true, anyway) doesn't mean "Not allowed for in this system of government," which (as I understand it) is OR's (incorrect) stance on the issue. I suspect he knows he's incorrect as well, and that's why he has not responded to the question.

    He's just wrong. And I can't figure out why, because this stuff is simple to understand.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  34. #209
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,471

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    No, I really don't. As I understand the logic:

    1. A democracy can be direct or representative.
    2. The USA has representative democracy.
    3. Therefore the USA is a democracy, not a republic.
    Nope. It's simple:

    It's not "democracy" OR "republic." That would be akin to saying it's "dog" OR "Airedale."

    One is a subset of the other. Or, if you prefer a more Venn-diagram idiom: all republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  35. #210
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,303

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    But answered incorrectly.

    Nothing in what you posted suggests any inherent limits for what legislators or voters can propose for a vote, and then vote on. "Impossible at this time" (which I don't accept as true, anyway) doesn't mean "Not allowed for in this system of government," which (as I understand it) is OR's (incorrect) stance on the issue. I suspect he knows he's incorrect as well, and that's why he has not responded to the question.

    He's just wrong. And I can't figure out why, because this stuff is simple to understand.

    Tom
    Splitting hairs again. The process of passing legislation, or making an amendment, is not complete until it is complete. So no, the US cannot make laws that SCOTUS rules unconstitutional. The US cannot amend its constitution whilst the Party of No mindset exists.
    The wording of your question was one of those fallacious arguments. The purpose of a legislature when voting is to ma#ke a law. The US cannot make laws if SCOTUS disagrees. That is the key, not whether they can waste time debating and voting on a proposal guaranteed to be thrown out by SCOTUS.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •