when did "conservatives " begin to distinguish between a "democracy" and a "republic?"

As I said, "The purpose of a government should be to preserve and protect individual liberty first and foremost." I never said that carrying out that primary responsibility was easy or not messy.

 

I can't argue that but the US Constitution does guarantee a Republican form of government on paper. Unfortunately there's no practical system within the Constitution to enforce it on government.

On paper. But reality is that it's a corporatocracy. As Bush once proclaimed about the Constitution, "it's only a g0ddamn piece of paper".

 

There is no possible way that a constitution can guarantee that anybody will always or even ever adhere to it. A little like there is no law against robbing a bank that can guarantee that no bank will ever be robbed. You are correct that any constitution "guarantee" comes only from the will of the people -- and that includes primarily the people running the government -- who, with virtue, abide by it and uphold it.

 

That's true, but only by a couple of hairs.

 

That includes primarily the people.........who select those running the government.

 

~ Sad but true ... Soon we may become totalitarian as well !

 

you didn't answer the question.

 

Since Citizens united,so repealing it or nullifying it is job #1

 

~ Enforcing the U.S. Constitution would be a better idea .

 

I thought I did. Carrying out the governments responsibility is very hard and extremely messy. I have just some basic ideas, but it takes much more than me to figure out the best system. And, it takes some will to even try. To answer part of your question, the government pays for its efforts through taxation. DUH! Did I miss something?

 

It goes back a hell of a lot further than Citizens United. The illegitimate rulings in Citizens United is a result of Marbury vs Madison (1803).

 

The conversation was about ending corporatocracy, and repealing Citizens United is necessary towards that end.

So, in what specific manner do we 'enforce the constitution' to eliminate the corporatocracy that exists in America?

 

Which requires depriving individuals of liberty insofar as taxes are mandatory, but you just said the primary purpose of a government is to protect individual liberty.

I'm kind of wondering what compelled you to make that statement, what drives you to assert it?

 

In Marbury vs Madison, the Marshall Court established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

So, I ask, how are the * 'illegitimate' rulings in Citizens United the result of Marbury vs Madison? I ask because the way you worded your sentence, it seem to imply there is something wrong with Marbury v Madison. That case is one of the first cases discussed in law classes, and I've never heard anyone suggest or imply it was flawed.

*I wouldn't characterize the rulings as 'illegit' as a court ruling is legal, I would characterize it as wrong insofar as it is disservice to America by corrupting politics even more than it was before. But, I know what you meant.

 

Yes. Democracy has no legitimacy when it violates fundamental rights. Of course the concept of rights was several centuries ahead of them.

 

The power of judicial review was always implicitly granted in Article III from inception. A law or act is reviewed by SCOTUS under a grant of petition of Writ of Certiorari. SCOTUS can then rule the law or act constitutionally compliant or not. That is judicial review in a nutshell.

In Marbury vs Madison SCOTUS had a eureka moment where they took their ruling well beyond their Article III limitations. They decided they had the power to "interpret" the Constitution. By doing that SCOTUS can then "interpret" the Constitution to fit the law or not and not necessarily the law to fit the Constitution. And by extension, they create legislation via case "law" (granting itself Article II powers) and even amend the Constitution by "interpreting" its language as they see fit (granting itself Article V powers) and thereby corrupting its intent. The power to "interpret" the Constitution is not a power granted in Article III and it clearly violates the 10th Amendment. Why on earth would the framers grant the judiciary such overriding powers? Why not grant such powers in Article I or Article II? The balance of powers is then heavily tipped in favor of the judiciary, a bunch of unelected black robed lawyers.

So we get idiotic and dangerous rulings such as corporations (a paper created fiction) have protected rights under the Bill of Rights and money is speech. We also get qualified and absolute immunity for government servants in violation of the First Amendment's protected right to petition the government for redress. Not to mention SCOTUS deciding the President in Bush vs Gore. There are many other examples.

 

Well, there is liberty, and then again there is liberty. Even the high level concept of liberty, the inalienable right to do what you want to do, has its limits, like you can't murder people without the government crashing down on you. Taxing people does not take away their basic liberty until it becomes excessively obtrusive. If everyone was taxed at a 100% rate they would completely lose their capability to pursue their dreams and happiness and therefore lose their basic liberty.

Liberty in a constitutional republic is taken away one little step at a time until autocratic authoritarianism takes over and the people stand around wondering what the hell happened. Governments that are charged with preserving and protecting individual liberty spend 98% of the time taking individual liberty away one little bite at a time. This is what the founders and framers recognized and understood to be the natural progression to tyranny. They did there best to block that but knew full well it was an uphill incessant battle. This is epitomized with Goldwater's "eternal vigilance" and Reagan's "the loss of freedom [liberty] is no more than a generation away." Or as Sen. Laxalt told high schooler Mark Levin many years ago, "Every day the senate meets you lose a tiny bit of liberty."

 

Until around the beginning of the 20th century, the U.S. was always referred to as a Republic. Ever hear of the Battle Hymn of the Republic? Not until Progressive Politicians began their move to "Social Democracy" did educators begin to use the term Democracy.

 

Thanks to the Public indoctrination system!

 

And when corruption takes hold, that is a limited number of elite.

 

IMO, it was flawed in that it was never contemplated by the founders and framers that it would be something the court did. (There is also the little problem the Marshall made an incorrect ruling on the specific case in order to set the precedent on constitutional rulings, but this is just a curious sidebar.) The unavoidable rub is passing judgements on constitutionality by the supreme court seems natural and clearly logical. It would make no sense for a supreme court to have the authority to make ultimate rulings on all judicial matters except for the constitution. Arguing whether the precedent is correct or not seems a moot debate, which is kinda what you said.

 

Good point (other than your examples suck and are non-sequitur.)

 

But that's the problem with pure democracy. It only recognizes fundamental rights as long as a bare majority does.

 

They are perfectly good examples of how the power to "interpret" the Constitution perverts not only the Constitution but common sense as well.

 

Yet government regularly murders people with impunity (via state sanctioned execution and waging wars of aggression, among other things). The Constitution was written under the concept of the Declaration of Independence, to protect the individual rights of The People, first and foremost from their government. You can't protect the liberty of dead people.