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

In theory. In reality it was just political expediency to get something agreed upon that led to our bicameral legislature.

 

True, it was very hot in Philadelphia that year and the Hall had the windows closed. Our Constitution was more a matter of a bunch of old men avoiding heatstroke than anything else.

 

I disagree. Your argument is impotent for the following reason: You do not have to ability to impose your concept on the judiciary. So, what is the solution? Can we achieve a design that pragmatically achieves your stated desire?

There has to be an agent of interpretation of the constitution, lest the constitution become a fixed, unchanging, unaccommodating to societal evolution document, which, to me, is murderous to the concept of a living, breathing, adaptable to societal evolution kind of document. Now, by that I mean, 'with restraint', which is why we have the amendment process, and SCOTUS, in the first place ( or that is how it should be, in my view, in the modern era). The constitution was created when men owned men and women, so this idea of 'framer intent' is not a strong point, with me.

As for your 'unelected lawyers with black robes' point, I'm very mindful to that issue, as well, and it is a valid one. In my view, we could put a check on that kind of thing by increasing the number of judges, to say, 29. Currently, one judge, in a party dominated and political polarized world, in a 4/5 court, all he has to do is get one other judge to go along with him, and his decision affects 330,000,000 people. That is too much power for one person to have. so, in a larger group of judges, it requires consensus, discussion and consensus, such as that has been afforded to congress to temper the probability of tyrannical acts of single persons, would put a check on that kind of thing. The result would be that we have the best of both worlds, a document that can evolve as society evolves, but slowly, and not due to the decision of one person.

So, in my view, your issue can be solved by a redesign of the court. 9 is not enough. Why? You can make your argument all day long, but who is the arbiter? Its not you, me, or anyone. There is only one agent available to do it, the SCOTUS. So, SCOTUS design is the only solution ( that I can see), not your argument, which, though valid, is of no consequence.

 

Well, we both agree we are against creeping fascism, which seems to be occurring.

But, and it is a mighty big one, you seem to be accusing the left of this.

But, another might big but, in point of fact, it's the right that is pushing us gradually to fascism.

See, you are confusing newly created laws which, in a similar vein of taxes, places a limitation on freedom, that the government, via lawmaking, does stuff you don't personally agree with, you are confusing it as 'fascism'.

No, that's not fascism at all. That's governance by consensus, 'the consent of the governed', the majority elects the government they desire. The minority are going to bitch, because their will isn't being enacted, only the will of the majority, but that's not fascism, that is the system we have, and that is the system we have always had.

Fascism ( the current creeping fascism as it existed under Trump) is where the rule of law is diminished, and the rule of men is strengthened, and on many fronts, this was occuring with the election of Trump.

Trumpism, not the left, is your enemy, but, for some darn reason, you are unable to see it. I had one OP that demonstrated this point in spades:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/on-corruption.585163/

I mean, if Trump's fascistic control of the DOJ (see above link) and the attack on the capitol on Jan 6 didn't give you an epiphany and 'see the light', as it were, i guess nothing will.

 

I did, but @Bob0627 rebutted with a valid issue. Given, like you say, the only agent to make such determinations of constitutionality of law is SCOTUS, rendering Bob's complaint a rather impotent one, but a valid sentiment, nevertheless, I proposed a solution:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-and-a-republic.585167/page-4#post-1072460617

 

I'll respond to the two 1. corporations ......have protected rights under the Bill of Rights: Do you think a state should be able to seize the assets of any corporation for themselves without any due process and for any reason? Sounds like it.
2. deciding the President in Bush vs Gore: SCOTUS did not rule who won the election of 2000. The voters decided Bush won.

 

SCOTUS stopped legal votes from being counted. In so doing violating a supposed Repub principle of not usurping a state's authority. It's ruling handed the election to Bush.

Sandra Day O'Connor Now Doubts Wisdom of Bush v. Gore
Ralph Nader agrees, calls the decision the most 'constitutionally violative decision in American legal history.'
https://www.usnews.com/news/newsgra...ndra-day-oconnor-doubts-wisdom-of-bush-v-gore

RETIRED SUPREME COURT Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose decision to vote with the majority in the 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision ended the 2000 presidential election recount, said Friday in an interview with the Chicago Tribune that she's not sure the court should have heard the case.

The ruling overturned a previous decision by the Florida Supreme Court that ordered a recount of state ballots. Republican George W. Bush was declared the victor over Democrat Al Gore with a 537-vote margin in the state.

 

It may be a picky point, but I think significant. Fascism and authoritarian autocracy are not necessarily the same thing. I am referring to the latter.

The left and the Democrats are pushing hell bent for leather for authoritarian centralized oligarchy, and have been since 2009. Admittedly Republicans often push (and sometimes push hard) in the same direction, so there is ample blame to go around. However, by any rational analysis, Trump did more in actuality to secure individual liberty than any president since, maybe, Reagan. Before that you probably have to go all the way back to Coolidge.

Authoritarians get significant support from the people because, 1. The people believe the lies and superficiality of politicians, and 2. Many approve.

I did not see any fascistic control of the DOJ by Trump, and Trump had zero, nada, zilch, zip -- in words or actions -- to do with the Jan 6th riot at the capitol. Maybe that's why I got no epiphany..

 

Nope.

A year later, in November 2001, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago announced the results of an examination of all 170,000 undervotes and overvotes.

NORC found that with a full statewide hand recount, Gore would have won Florida under every possible vote standard. Depending on which standard was used, his margin of victory would have varied from 60 to 171 votes.
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/10...t-the-presidency-with-a-preemptive-surrender/

 

Except for motivating the mob to come to DC, on the day the EC votes were to be certified, by lying to them. By telling them it was their patriotic duty to stop the election from being stolen. Then telling them when fraud occurs you get to play by a different set of rules.

“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules.”

 

Since the Trumpocity came on the scene.

 

I agree Bob0627 made a significant point that is the crux of the real problem. I agreed with it and told him so. I don't like your solution because too many cooks spoil the soup. If there are 9 cooks making the soup and it is coming out bad, the answer is not to bring in 20 more cooks. Instead of 5 to 4 opinions you'll end up with 13 to 5 to 4 to 7 opinions.

 

No, they did not. SCOTUS made no ruling or declaration of the legality of any ballot.

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 — In a sudden and devastating blow to Vice President Al Gore's presidential hopes, the United States Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 today to stop the vote counting that had begun hours earlier in Florida. The court set Monday morning for arguments on Gov. George W. Bush's appeal of the Florida Supreme Court ruling that ordered manual recounts across the state of ballots that initially showed no vote for president.

Justice Stevens filed a two-page dissenting opinion, which the other three dissenters joined. "To stop the counting of legal votes, the majority today departs from three venerable rules of judicial restraint that have guided the court throughout its history," Justice Stevens said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/10/...t-54-halts-florida-count-in-blow-to-gore.html

Get real.

 

I could just as easily say the same for you so that's a non sequitur.

I already did. Article III grants the judiciary the power of judicial review, plain and simple. It does not grant the judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution, usually as it sees fit ... for the judiciary.

Yeah it's called an English language dictionary.

You resolved your own concern. The framers built the Amendment process into the Constitution exactly for that reason.

Better to use 330 million judges, but that's not a valid cure. The Constitution is not the domain of any of the 3 branches of government, they are tasked with a prime directive, to preserve (which is already violated by the concept of interpreting the Constitution), protect and defend it. So it belongs to The People and The People are (or should be) the final arbiters of the Constitution itself. Jury nullification exists to restrain government. That is a jury can and should rule not just on the facts, evidence and the law but the law itself.

I have created a thread of suggested Amendments that details some of the defects with the Constitution that might correct some of the problems with it. I'll provide the link to the latest iteration:

That is not to say that anything I proposed would ever be contemplated by the US government, of course.

"Everything Hitler did was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.

(rendering any complaint of any government system impotent)

"It is what it is" - Donald Trump

 

No it sounds nothing like it. A corporation is owned by the shareholders (i.e. human beings), who are each protected by the Bill of Rights. Seizing the assets of a corporation absent due process violates the protected rights of the individual shareholders.

Addressed by post #89.

 

Correct. Under Separation of Powers, different parts of government have different roles.

Legislation proscribes future behavior.
The Judicial system applies the law to past facts.

 

My first thought when I saw that was John Yoo's fatuous opinion about torture, justifying its use during the Shrub admin. It's one of the most disgraceful stains on the US in our history.

 

Precisely what I said. Your rebuttal claimed nothing contrary to my post. Have trouble with the English language and syntax?

 

The constitution says in the 5th amendment, "........ nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; .......". Your first post said corporations are not so protected. Now you say they are, as I asserted. Which is it? I'm getting dizzy.

except Lee Atwater did not refute my assertion in the least. He inadvertently agreed with it. See post #94.

 

Yes. Parliaments are much more powerful than a Congress. We wanted an equally powerful President and Judiciary, counting on the three competing factions to keep the government as a whole, in check.

Though we called ourselves a Republic (or Representative Democracy) the rubber really hit the road when George Washington, completing his two terms, published his farewell address, marking the first peaceful transfer of power in American history and cementing the country’s status as a stable, democratic state.

It was unique. In that time and era, politicians would gain power, or kings would stay in office until they died.

But he stepped down, his VP was elected, and then the second great test took place when the Thomas Jefferson as head of the opposition party, won, and John Adams stepped down, and we had our first transition of the Party in Power.

This peaceful transfer of power is one of the bedrocks of the great stability of our Liberal Constitutional Republican Democracy.

 

That's rich considering just about everyone in Trump's cabinet were from Goldman & Sachs, hell, just about everyone except Goldman & Sachs.

A nation run by laws is not authoritarian. Authoritarianism is the antithesis of respecting law. No president more than Trump has shown a total disrespect for law as much as Trump has. So, I have no idea what you are talking about when the evidence is clearly showing that the current flavor of the GOP who favors Trump is the authoritarian party.

 

That old cliche just doesn't work. The judges are not cooking up anything, they are gathering consensus as a more cautionary way to evaluate their rulings. Consensus from a larger body is more cautious than a 4/5 court were only one judge has to get one other judge to go along, which gives one judge too much power over 330,000,000 people.

As for

Instead of 5 to 4 opinions you'll end up with 13 to 5 to 4 to 7

That's a spin, what will actually happen is that the majority opinion will be the result of a much larger consensus, which is more cautionary than a smaller group.

This idea of the lives of 330,000,000 million persons affected by the vote of one judge ( the swing voter) is a disservice to America and way too much power for one person to have. A 29 judge court would prevent this, ( at least more often) where we would have a clear majority making decisions because the odds of 15/14 decisions are far less likely than 5/4 decisions.

 

I never said corporations are protected by anything, they're not human. It's the person(s) that's protected, in this case the shareholders, they own the corporation (their property) collectively. The relevant words are highlighted for you convenience.

I'm sorry your confusion is making you dizzy, take your meds.

 

SCOTUS was well aware of the count, they indirectly crowned the next President. But whether they did or didn't, SCOTUS does not have the constitutional authority to stop the count any more than Donald Trump does.