It was the statement you didn't reply to.
At any rate, even those people who don't know that the US is both a republic and a democracy generally seem to think it is only a republic because they wrongly assume that a democracy can not have constitutional protection.
So whether you know it's a democracy or wrongly think it's only a republic we can all agree that a constitution is there to protect citizens from the tyranny of unchecked majority rule.
At any rate, even those people who don't know that the US is both a republic and a democracy generally seem to think it is only a republic because they wrongly assume that a democracy can not have constitutional protection.
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
So while it's more republic than democracy, it's in essence both.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not saying you're wrong but people lean towards the "republic" side more because of:So while it's more republic than democracy, it's in essence both.
People don't lean towards that side more. Most people know that the US is a democracy. There's some people who think they know better, but they are just wrong about what a democracy is.
The confusion comes because these people aren't aware that Democracy is not a form of government, but a method by which a government exists. Just as there are Monarchies that are Democracies (England, Spain) there are Republics that are Democracies (USA, France, Germany).
A government doesn't have to decide whether it is a Democracy or a Republic. It has to decide whether it is a Democracy, a Technocracy, an Aristocracy, an Oligarchy or maybe a Theocracy...
People don't lean towards that side more. Most people know that the US is a democracy. There's some people who think they know better, but they are just wrong about what a democracy is.
The confusion comes because these people aren't aware that Democracy is not a form of government, but a method by which a government exists. Just as there are Monarchies that are Democracies (England, Spain) there are Republics that are Democracies (USA, France, Germany).
A government doesn't have to decide whether it is a Democracy or a Republic. It has to decide whether it is a Democracy, a Technocracy, an Aristocracy, an Oligarchy or maybe a Theocracy...
Originally posted by psmith81992
While that may be true, I think most people that think we're a democracy are unaware of what a democracy really is.Granted, our form of government is a democracy which happens to exist in a republic. I suppose they're interchangeable unless someone decides to be pseudo intellectual douche.
Sure, but once a government decides it's a democracy, why not break it down further? Not that IT has to.
Perhaps, people are infinitely capable to surprise someone with ignorance.
The definition your source material used is just not accurate. It's one very specific usage of Democracy, that disregards the much more common usage of the word, both in every day life and in political theory.
Of course, and it does. Like Bashar said it's a Federal Republic. It has a separation of powers. It's a representative, not a direct, democracy. It has an electoral college. etc. etc. you can define the aspect of the government as granular as you want, my issue is just with people who are trying to be smartasses with their "Actually...the US is a republic, not a democracy", not only because they are being smartasses, but mainly because they are wrong.
Originally posted by BackFire
Won't respond to Obamacare since that's not the topic here.The 14th amendment is the relevant amendment when it comes to same sex marriage, though. It is the one that protects and addresses the rights of citizens. Particularly this part of section 1 - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
You think this is the first SC to come across that language in a gay marriage debate? No its not. Instead of everyone having a discussion about it, they ran to get a SC ruling to shove it down everyone's throat. You don't know what has been done cause you agree with it, however as long as they can take away our constitution and make you agree with it, that is them winning. One day it will be to late and they will decide to take more and more, then what will you do man? Pray for it back?
So what has been done that's so bad here? What do you think will follow because of this decision? Would you have been equally as alarmed by the almost identical situation that occurred in the 60's when they "shoved a ruling down everyone's throat" that forced the legalization of interracial marriage?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You think this is the first SC to come across that language in a gay marriage debate? No its not. Instead of everyone having a discussion about it, they ran to get a SC ruling to shove it down everyone's throat. You don't know what has been done cause you agree with it, however as long as they can take away our constitution and make you agree with it, that is them winning. One day it will be to late and they will decide to take more and more, then what will you do man? Pray for it back?
The first US national supreme court? Yes, it is, gay marriage has never reached the supreme court of the United States before.
The first supreme court period? No, several state supreme courts have encountered such arguments. They largely sided in favor of gay marriage. Which is why it moved up to the US Supreme Court.
Also, 'ran to get a SC ruling'? The public debate over gay marriage has been going on at a national level for literally years, and it passed from lower courts to higher courts in multiple districts and states. It's got 60+% public support and has been debated regularly for the last several years, with multiple avenues of argument against it used by different parties in different courts (largely found, rightly, to be of legally questionable nature), with many complaining that the Supreme Court was dragging it's feet way too long to pick up one of the several court cases that had passed from local courts to state courts to circuit courts and were awaiting them.
The first court case that ruled in favor of gay marriage was in 1993!
This is like the Obamacare thing only more so. Complaining about a lack-of-input when there was a several month public debate where they were asked for input and Obama ran on it as part of his campaign... except instead of several months of explicit debate plus some campaigns, we've had about a decade of it being in the public eye, and much longer of it being an issue in courts and specific venues.
'Ran' in this case seems to mean 'had any progress toward a ruling whatsoever.'
Originally posted by BackFire
So what has been done that's so bad here? What do you think will follow because of this decision? Would you have been equally as alarmed by the almost identical situation that occurred in the 60's when they "shoved a ruling down everyone's throat" that forced the legalization of interracial marriage?
I imagine the ranters were ranting similar rants back then as well. "End of times", "people will marry their dogs now" etc.
Originally posted by BackFire
So what has been done that's so bad here? What do you think will follow because of this decision? Would you have been equally as alarmed by the almost identical situation that occurred in the 60's when they "shoved a ruling down everyone's throat" that forced the legalization of interracial marriage?
I'm trying to get you to understand this isn't about gay marriage bro.
Originally posted by psmith81992
If that was the case then polygamy would also be on the table, which it's not. But it certainly opens the door for multiple partners.
One step at a time and I see no reason why polygamy should be illegal if done between consenting adults and not the way those fringe-Mormons do it by trading their underage daughters with each other in a slave-like fashion.
So there goes your slippery slope 👆
Originally posted by Robtard
Correct, it's overall about equality. Letting any consenting adult marry another consenting adult.
- Should a brother be allowed to marry his sister? Should all incestuous relationships be legalized?
- Should a woman be allowed to marry multiple men?
My point is that where do we draw the line?
Humans came up with the norms of right and wrong (moral code) and outcome was an advanced civilization. It was better for humans to differentiate themselves from wild animals.
Now, thanks to this legislation, we are heading back towards the era of barbarism and bestiality. I suppose, pro-incest movement would be next.
Yes exact this^
There is already a movement of gay men wanting to have relationships with underage boys. Now of coarse when I posted on this. No one said anything. Everyone is to much of a pansy to come out and say that's wrong. They will ignore avoid, then when it's really a debate say "14th Ammendemnt!!!!"