Utah senator not a fan of democracy

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,845
Reppin
the ether
From a legal perspective, the interpretation of a legal document will be conducted by way of the author's intent.

Intent involves defining.

I can concur with the term constitutional republic. That is most descriptive of this form of government of the several States and of the United States.
That "author" did NOT think non-propertied White men, Black men, women, or Native American men could vote. Those things didn't happen fully until 1856, 1868, 1920 and 1924 (though for Black folk didn't really happen until 1965).

That "author" did NOT have a system with the direct election of senators. That didn't come until 1913.

That "author" did NOT have a popular vote for the electoral college in every state. That wasn't fully instituted until the 1860s.


So again, it's meaningless to claim that someone from the 1700s is supposed to be the end-all for defining the name of a system that they were never even part of.
 

tuckgod

The high exalted
Bushed
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
47,577
Reputation
14,205
Daps
178,706
I believe sixth century Athens was closest to a pure democracy. It originated in response to Solon's reforms after the Laws of Draco.

There some really good books that give in-depth descriptions of various forms of government.

One of the more interesting treatises on the matter is authored by Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws.

The oldest form of government is, of course, a monarchy. Republics (Latin: res publica or "a thing public") tend to develop after the fall (or forced removal) of monarchies.

If you will note with the executive branch of government in the US: the presidency or governorship resembles a monarchy.
The executive branch also holds a shadow office i.e. the office of dictator when activated during states of emergency.

The Senate resembles and oligarchy.
The House resembles a representative democracy.
In the original design of the government, the Senate represented the States and the House represented the people.

The US's tripartite form of government is actually several different forms of government in one with crossed checks and balances against each other.

The judiciary resembles a kritarchy.

Repped
 

LurkMoar

Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
27,106
Reputation
2,945
Daps
86,800
Reppin
NULL
Legislative monarchy is the GOAT, democracies are trash at long term planning. That’s why anyone thinking we gonna do anything about climate change is lying to themselves. That takes long term focused leaderships, the moment the opposition party gets in power they gonna destroy whatever plans made.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
876
Reputation
500
Daps
1,889
Legislative monarchy is the GOAT, democracies are trash at long term planning. That’s why anyone thinking we gonna do anything about climate change is lying to themselves. That takes long term focused leaderships, the moment the position arty gets in power they gonna destroy whatever plans made.

Monarchies tend toward autocracy.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,845
Reppin
the ether
"BigRemy_J negged you for your post in the thread Utah senator not a fan of democracy. With the following comment: You’re a dumbass and a poser pretending to be some intellectual...."



Someone get their mans. This fool is chasing me from thread to thread constantly bytching and complaining that I'm not as smart as he thinks I am. I've never once called myself "an intellectual", but apparently he is so overwhelmed by someone posting facts that he has to cast honor and shade in the same sentence. :mjlol::mjlol:
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
876
Reputation
500
Daps
1,889
That "author" did NOT think non-propertied White men, Black men, women, or Native American men could vote. Those things didn't happen fully until 1856, 1868, 1920 and 1924 (though for Black folk didn't really happen until 1965).

That "author" did NOT have a system with the direct election of senators. That didn't come until 1913.

That "author" did NOT have a popular vote for the electoral college in every state. That wasn't fully instituted until the 1860s.


So again, it's meaningless to claim that someone from the 1700s is supposed to be the end-all for defining the name of a system that they were never even part of.

As to judicial interpretation and construction, I merely stated the default stance any court would take.

Supposedly, the Constitution of the United States was designed to change, be flexible, and evolve as citizenry and the government change.
 

LurkMoar

Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
27,106
Reputation
2,945
Daps
86,800
Reppin
NULL
Monarchies tend toward autocracy.


That’s why you water it down while retaining its long term stability. Imagine if America had a unified goal starting from 2000 to 2020? How many wasted years has this “democracy” cost us.

it’s never gonna happen but I’m just throwing out how I feel about it :yeshrug:
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
876
Reputation
500
Daps
1,889
That’s why you water it down while retaining its long term stability. Imagine if America had a unified goal starting from 2000 to 2020? How many wasted years has this “democracy” cost us.

it’s never gonna happen but I’m just throwing out how I feel about it :yeshrug:

Would this model resemble the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom?
 

LurkMoar

Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
27,106
Reputation
2,945
Daps
86,800
Reppin
NULL
Would this model resemble the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom?


Yes but with more executive power for the monarch, that way they have leeway to keep pressing on even when popular opinion( a fickle thing) turns against a policy.

problem is democracy incentives short term thinking, and you see it every election. Literally every election is the most important of your life or else the world will end.

we should be building thorium reactors and investing in long term sustainability as well as infrastructure, but that’s gonna hurt the pockets of people in the short term so that’s a big no no.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,845
Reppin
the ether
As to judicial interpretation and construction, I merely stated the default stance any court would take.

Supposedly, the Constitution of the United States was designed to change, be flexible, and evolve as citizenry and the government change.
If you admit that the government has changed, then why are you refusing to admit that change? We are not in Adams' republic. We actually allow everyone (well, some approximation of everyone) to vote, and we directly vote for our Representatives, Senators, and Electoral College (while explicitly telling those Electoral College electors who they are casting their ballot for). It is much more of a Democracy than it was in Adams' age, so he has no power to define a system he never saw.

But beyond that, some of y'all are getting bogged down in legalism and semantics and missing the entire point of what is going on. Words are defined by their use, and words have power. For several generations, Republicans enjoyed the "power" of calling our government a Democracy, and used that word due to its rhetorical power. The word "Democracy" became synonymous with our system of government, and thus by definition was correct. But now they see that the majority of the American people hate them, that Black and Brown voters despise them and are growing in number every year. They fear a democratic majority. So now the word "Democracy" is their enemy.

They will chase every means possible to suppress voters, to gerrymander districts. They will fight any effort to abolish the Electoral College or fight for a fairer distribution of senators. And abandoning the word "Democracy" that they supported for so long is part of their fight. Don't join their battles for them.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,845
Reppin
the ether
:russ::russ::russ:


But for real I'm kinda surprised how easy it was for them to switch up the message AND actually have people buy into it.

It's like that scene in animal farm where where the pigs had the other animals buy into the slogan that some animals were more equal than others :mjpls:

Yeah, I'm always for shyt in connecting events to literary references but that is a PERFECT comparison. :whoo:
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
876
Reputation
500
Daps
1,889
If you admit that the government has changed, then why are you refusing to admit that change? We are not in Adams' republic. We actually allow everyone (well, some approximation of everyone) to vote, and we directly vote for our Representatives, Senators, and Electoral College (while explicitly telling those Electoral College electors who they are casting their ballot for). It is much more of a Democracy than it was in Adams' age, so he has no power to define a system he never saw.

But beyond that, some of y'all are getting bogged down in legalism and semantics and missing the entire point of what is going on. Words are defined by their use, and words have power. For several generations, Republicans enjoyed the "power" of calling our government a Democracy, and used that word due to its rhetorical power. The word "Democracy" became synonymous with our system of government, and thus by definition was correct. But now they see that the majority of the American people hate them, that Black and Brown voters despise them and are growing in number every year. They fear a democratic majority. So now the word "Democracy" is their enemy.

They will chase every means possible to suppress voters, to gerrymander districts. They will fight any effort to abolish the Electoral College or fight for a fairer distribution of senators. And abandoning the word "Democracy" that they supported for so long is part of their fight. Don't join their battles for them.

You must note the power of control over the interpretation, construction, and ultimately execution of a law in whatever form whether statute, act, code, rule, regulation, or corporate by-law.

The construction is the domain of the legislature.
The interpretation is the domain of the judiciary.
The enforcement is the domain of the executive.

Legalism (and it ensuing semantics) controls your and I existence predominantly by way of contract and contract law with examples too numerous name. The other controls are presumptions (allowed to stand without rebuttal or challenge in most instances) along with ignorance of the general populace.

I dare say studying legalism (and its ensuing semantics) makes your intellect and discernment stronger.
 
Last edited:

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,845
Reppin
the ether
You must note the power of control over the interpretation, construction, and ultimately execution of a law in whatever form whether statute, act, code, rule, regulation, or corporate by-law.

The construction is the domain of the legislature.
The interpretation is the domain of the judiciary.
The enforcement is the domain of the executive.

Legalism (and it ensuing semantics) controls your and I existence predominantly by way of contract and contract law with examples too numerous name. The other controls are presumptions (allowed to stand without rebuttal or challenge in most instances) along with ignorance of the general populace.

I dare say studying legalism (and its ensuing semantics) makes your intellect and discernment stronger.

But we're not talking about a law so WTF are you going on about? :dahell:
 
Top