Famous NZ lady

[rockfox]

Obviously the UK has deteriorated socially just like the USA

And more rapidly at that.

 

[MeganC]

The US system is better as it's a copy of the tried and tested UK system, modified to be democratic at all levels rather than having a hereditary upper house and head of state. But that very democratic nature is its downfall, as it allows a single political party to take control of all three branches, removing the checks. This is harder to do than in a single chamber parliament, so better than that, but still in principle a less stable system than the original. The heridatary house of lords and monarchy in the UK in theory provide a conservative check on the dangers of democracy, while the democratic house of commons provides a check on the power of the monarch and the lords. This should, in theory, give the best of both worlds. Obviously the UK has deteriorated socially just like the USA, so this is not foolproof either. But it's better than NZ, which is a backwater ignored by the monarch allowing the democrats to run amok.

The US is not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

And even if a party has control of all three branches of government they have to have 2/3 super-majorities in both houses of Congress to even come close to exercising the kind of control you write about. Even then they would be stymied by a myriad of state governments, state courts, federal courts, and then state and federal bureaucracies.

No party has ever held super-majority control of both houses of Congress.

True one-party political dominance in the USA would require the following conditions:

Control of the Presidency
Supermajority control of both houses of Congress
Six of nine Supreme Court seats.
Control of two thirds of state legislatures (only Nebraska is unicameral so this means control of two houses)
Control of the state supreme courts in the above states.
Control of the Federal District courts for the above states.

Only in this extraordinary circumstance would a party be able to pass the Constitutional amendments required to assume and maintain dictatorial one-party rule.

Even then the odds of a popular uprising would move from probable to inevitable as dissenting states would seek secession or revolt.

 

[rockfox]

The uniparty already has all that control, and more.

The US is not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

Of all the boomerisms that's one of the stupidest.

We are supposed to be a democracy. Specifically a representative democracy. Both direct democracy and representative democracy are forms of republican government. But the representative form is worse than a direct democracy as it includes easily corrupted middlemen. All the worse when combined with a regulatory bureaucracy.

And it's not really proper to call us constitutional anymore. That was dead paper generations ago. Nor is it proper to call us a democracy, no multi-ethnic empire can claim that title; much less one with sham elections.

Properly described we are a totalitarian empire ruled by a financial oligarchy with an intelligence shadow government wearing democracy like a skin-suit to tamp down revolutionary impulses.

 

[MeganC]

Of all the boomerisms that's one of the stupidest.

Ignorance on your part is not a shortcoming on my part.

Is the United States a Constitutional Republic?

US should be classified as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, for various reasons such as the original draft of the Constitution

www.standrewslawreview.com

The American Founding Fathers

James Madison, oftentimes called the Father of the Constitution, helped to draft and establish the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He determined that after the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the United States could only function with a strong federal government. This led delegates from all 13 colonies to meet and begin to draft what would become the Constitution, establishing the three fundamental branches of the United States government.

Madison realised the problems that plagued direct democracies and instead sought to establish a Constitutional Republic. In a Constitutional Republic, rather than the legal power of the government stemming from the people, it is instead derived from the Constitution itself. The term Constitutional Republic can be clearly understood when analysing each word separately. The “Constitutional” aspect of the Republic means that the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States while the term “Republic” means that the power of the government is held by the people but is exercised by elected representatives. This differentiation in power helps to protect the Republic from being subject to “mob rule”, as originally described by Plato. This difference makes it so that, although by definition the United States is a democracy, every vote is not always equal. In Presidential elections, this inequality is addressed in the Electoral College where states gain a specified number of votes based on their census. The Electoral College allows for votes throughout the country to matter, rather than being reliant upon a small number of urban centers.

Madison and other Founding Fathers realised the complex nature of democracy and sought to separate the Executive and Judicial branches of power from the people. The Heritage Foundation states that the Founding Fathers saw that, “because ancient democracies lacked any social or institutional forces that could check, refine, or moderate the will of the majority, they were prone to great instability”. This instability left democracy vulnerable to tyranny and abuse.

Although citizens of the United States have the ability to elect Senators and Congressmen, they do not participate in the election of Presidents for a very important reason. A majority of the United States population is in a relatively small number of urban centers. If the President of the United States was elected directly by the people, the only votes that would matter would be those in urban areas, singling out the rural population. This would make it so that states such as New York and California have more of a say over what happens in the Midwest than the people living in the Midwest themselves. Although the Electoral College may seem antiquated to many, it serves a purpose to an equal footing to every state in the election of the next President. This is one of the clearest examples which separates the United States from being a democracy as it relies on a representative Electoral College originally created by the United States Constitution.

 

[FollowingHim]

This is splitting hairs. I don't disagree with any of the technical definitions you give @MeganC, my point was only that within that system, people are democratically elected to office (yes, even the president, a modified democratic system is still democracy). And that is its achiles heel.

 

[NBTX11]

Control of two thirds of state legislatures (only Nebraska is unicameral so this means control of two houses)
Control of the state supreme courts in the above states.

And people outside of the US probably don't realize just how deeply conservative many of the middle America states are, where Republicans control everything, and the Republican candidate for president wins by 20, 30, or 40 points in every presidential election. In Texas, the second largest US state by population, the Republicans control everything. Everything. Every state office, every judicial appointment, and the Texas House and Senate by large margins.

 

[steve]

And people outside of the US probably don't realize just how deeply conservative many of the middle America states are, where Republicans control everything, and the Republican candidate for president wins by 20, 30, or 40 points in every presidential election. In Texas, the second largest US state by population, the Republicans control everything. Everything. Every state office, every judicial appointment, and the Texas House and Senate by large margins.

If only they were conservative Republicans.

 

[MemeFan]

Ignorance on your part is not a shortcoming on my part.

Is the United States a Constitutional Republic?

US should be classified as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, for various reasons such as the original draft of the Constitution

www.standrewslawreview.com

@rockfox is way more right than you think.

Constitution was centralizing document and has never stopped centralization. Is has only added more friction and steps toward centralization.

True rule makers in USA are various agencies which nobody is truly able to control. And they will always push for more rules and money for them.

 

[MeganC]

@MemeFan The US is still very much a constitutional republic and this comes up every four years when the leftists complain about how the Electoral College insures that people who live in small population states still have a say in the Presidential elections.

 

[MrB]

We have two major parties @NBTX11, National and Labour. National is our nominally "right-wing" party and is roughly equivalent to your Democrats - basically centre-left. Labour is nominally a left-wing socialist party - but actually very similar to National, only slightly further left. Just like in the USA, these two function as a uniparty, pretending to oppose each other but in reality supporting most of the same policies.

We also have some minor parties in parliament. The Greens (left-wing social revolutionaries who greenwash their messaging to buy votes but actually focus on social issues more than the environment), the Maori party (brown racists) and ACT (fake libertarians, roughly similar to your Republicans). Each has a few seats only, and aligns themselves with one of the major parties.

And then we have a load of other minor parties outside of parliament. Among these are several semi-decent conservative parties. And that's the problem - there are several of them, none of which will work with each other. So nobody knows which to support, ensuring votes are divided and most never get into parliament (except for the most wishy-washy one, NZFirst, which sometimes gets seats and sometimes doesn't).

Also, we have a serious problem in that we have a single-chamber parliament, with no checks and balances. There is no upper house / senate, and the head of state by convention just signs into law everything parliament passes. So the above parties truly have total control.

It's rather depressing actually!

Today I met with the leader of the NZ opposition Party.
Chris Luxon
He’s a likeable chap, we had a short conversation that lacked any real depth But…
Enough to determine it appears he has a better understanding of some things ( legislatively and fiscally ) than the current mob, but ignorant on some other things That I feel are important (Socially).
my takeaway is he lacks any real guts to be different in a meaningful way. A true politician if ever there was.
It’s not enough to convince me I’m afraid.
but there is hope
it’s like a candle at the end of a long tunnel

 

[FollowingHim]

he lacks any real guts to be different in a meaningful way

That is about what everyone else is concluding too. And as such there's no hope to be looked for in National. Hardly better to vote for than Labour.

The people to watch this election are Matt King's DemocracyNZ party, whatever Leighton Baker ends up doing (which will hopefully end up as the two joining forces, but politicians are politicians...), ACT if there is a leadership coup to roll Seymour - and if all the above look hopeless we'll be back to old Winston Peters. New Conservative is a lost cause.

 

[rockfox]

n a Constitutional Republic, rather than the legal power of the government stemming from the people, it is instead derived from the Constitution itself. The term Constitutional Republic can be clearly understood when analysing each word separately. The “Constitutional” aspect of the Republic means that the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States while the term “Republic” means that the power of the government is held by the people but is exercised by elected representatives.

That is a bunch of retarded wordsalad doublespeak.

rather than the legal power of the government stemming from the people, it is instead derived from the Constitution itself.

If power comes from the Constitution but not the people, where did that piece of paper come from? Did it manifest itself out of thin air and conquer everyone?

A republic is the form of government that derives it's power from the people. The people are sovereign. We the People. A government of, by, and for the people. For the common good of the people. A commonwealth.

A written "Constitution" is merely one vehicle by which the people may establish a government.

The conservative worship of the Constitution is one of it's chief failures of the movement. They treat it like it's some power. It's not. It is a mere agreement, codified understanding of how the government will operate. It has no power on it's own.

 

[MemeFan]

The conservative worship of the Constitution is one of it's chief failures of the movement. They treat it like it's some power. It's not. It is a mere agreement, codified understanding of how the government will operate. It has no power on it's own.

Constitution is piece of paper. And paper doesn't act by itself. Only people act.

 

[MeganC]

The conservative worship of the Constitution is one of it's chief failures of the movement. They treat it like it's some power. It's not. It is a mere agreement, codified understanding of how the government will operate. It has no power on it's own.

Then laws mean nothing at all. Why do you even bother with this site since the Bible logically means nothing to you?

 

[MeganC]

Constitution is piece of paper. And paper doesn't act by itself. Only people act.

The Russian proclivity for routinely violating their written agreements would speak to your point of view.

 

[MeganC]

This is splitting hairs. I don't disagree with any of the technical definitions you give @MeganC, my point was only that within that system, people are democratically elected to office (yes, even the president, a modified democratic system is still democracy). And that is its achiles heel.

This is not splitting hairs.

The Greek city-states were democracies where individuals would meet and vote on matters of state.
That happens only in select small towns in the USA.

In the US we elect most representatives by majority vote thus we avoid the cumbersome and unstable coalition governments commony to parliamentary systems.

The House of Representatives is an example of representative democracy where most Congressional districts are roughly apportioned according to population within a state. HOWEVER the aspect of a Constitutional republic is demonstrated where regardless of population each state is guaranteed at least one representative.

The Senate is then an aspect of a Constitutional republic because each state has two Senators regardless of population size. The states are all equal in the Senate and the Senate itself is therefore not democratic at all.

The President is not directly elected by popular vote and that would be democracy. The President is elected based on the Electoral votes he receives with the Electoral votes being a function of the number of Senators and Representatives each state has. The purpose being to level out the power of the larger states to insure the representation of the smaller states.

These things do not occur in democracies.

That you do not understand or recognize the distinction is a you-problem and not a me-problem. Ditto that for @rockfox

 

[FollowingHim]

@MeganC, you have a very narrow and unique view on what is "democracy", which you are intentionally defining in such a way that supports your conclusions. This is a actually a very broad term that covers a wide range of different systems and has appeared in many forms through all of history and all of the world - it does NOT describe a particular form of government used by European countries. There's no point debating over words though so I'm going to stop here.

The conservative worship of the Constitution is one of it's chief failures of the movement. They treat it like it's some power. It's not. It is a mere agreement, codified understanding of how the government will operate. It has no power on it's own.

Then laws mean nothing at all. Why do you even bother with this site since the Bible logically means nothing to you?

This immediate parallel between the Constitution and the Bible is the exact problem @rockfox is pointing out. The constitution is held almost as reverently as scripture. In fact, it's held as more binding than the Mosaic law by most American protestants, if you think about it. But the constitution is the writing of men, while the laws in the Bible are given by God. There is no comparison.

To elevate the constitution equal to, if not greater than, the Mosaic law, would be idolatry - placing the laws of man ahead of the laws of God.

 

[MeganC]

This immediate parallel between the Constitution and the Bible is the exact problem @rockfox is pointing out. The constitution is held almost as reverently as scripture. In fact, it's held as more binding than the Mosaic law by most American protestants, if you think about it. But the constitution is the writing of men, while the laws in the Bible are given by God. There is no comparison.

To elevate the constitution equal to, if not greater than, the Mosaic law, would be idolatry - placing the laws of man ahead of the laws of God.

Alexis De Tocqueville best summarized this paradigm with these words:

Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.

and

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

The Constitution is indeed held reverantly beside Scripture because it is founded in Scripture. It enables our religious liberty and so long as we adhere to Scripture then the Constitution has meaning. For the Constitution is meant for a people of faith and as the nation becomes more pagan then the Constitution is less important to the people.

If we fall away from Christ then the liberties enumerated in the Constitution will likewise fall away.

 

[rockfox]

The Russian proclivity for routinely violating their written agreements would speak to your point of view.

You might want to brush up on your U.S. history with respect to our own adherence to treaties. There is a reason the Russians say the US is 'non agreement capable'.

Have you even read the Constitution lately? It is dead letter. Beyond the broad outlines of the form of government the details with respect to limits of power are entirely ignored. And even that ignores the way the uniparty and domestic intelligence have completely done an end run around the vaunted separation of powers.

 

[MemeFan]

Alexis De Tocqueville best summarized this paradigm with these words:

Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.

and

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

The Constitution is indeed held reverantly beside Scripture because it is founded in Scripture. It enables our religious liberty and so long as we adhere to Scripture then the Constitution has meaning. For the Constitution is meant for a people of faith and as the nation becomes more pagan then the Constitution is less important to the people.

If we fall away from Christ then the liberties enumerated in the Constitution will likewise fall away.

Constitution isn't founded in Scripture. It is founded in more money for me (Hamilton) and my friends. It was created and imposed by conspiracy. Murray Rothbard and Gary North have both written about this.

British Empire in that time practiced mercantilism (idea destroyed by Adam Smith). Raise tariffs and taxes on population to "protect domestic industry" and subsidize "domestic industry". It is form of crony capitalism.

Hamilton and friends were outside "protected" class under British rule. That why they rebelled. After indepedence they pushed for mercantilism inside states. What they wanted is to be part of "protected class".

Problem was that if only one state raised tariffs, traders would still import cheaper British goods into neighbouring state and then over land border between states. Therefore only solution is to federalize tariffs to block this "hole". Also strengthening federal level will mean more money for him and friends. What do you think internal improvements means? Cash for Hamilton and friends businesses.

And since colonists were under ideas of classical liberalism and "English freedom" they couldn't impose any government. They had to impose something sellable. And current Constitution is giving less power to federals than Hamilton wanted. Original variant didn't even have Bill of Rights.