Who should it be from to make you happy? If a homeless bum on the street tells you 2+2=4, is he wrong because he's a homeless bum? If the President of the United States tells you 2+2=5, is he right because he's the President? A truth is a truth, regardless who says it.

LOL. Wow, you are one seriously thorough researcher! Where did you get your doctorate by the way? Harvard? Princeton? Stanford?

As usual, the ignorance from some of our resident Neocons is appalling.

“Every step...towards...democracy is an advance towards destruction. Liberty has never yet lasted long in a democracy; nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism.” - Fisher Ames (1758-1808; Congressman)

"The use of the publication “The Constitution of the United States”, by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.

((Ed. Note: TM 2000-25; Sections 118-121))
[118.]

“Democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of ‘direct’ expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

120.

Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.

Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

Is the ‘standard form’ of government throughout the world.

((Ed. Note: This following quote from Harry Atwood is then listed in the Training Manual.)

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. – Atwood

121. Superior to all others. – Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

Democracy is the ‘direct’ rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy, and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”

((Ed. Note: The above information on Training Manual 2000-25 was taken from a sheet published by “The Network of Patriotic Letter Writers”.))"

http://www.tacklingthetoughtopics.ne...cy_part_2.html


And a dictionary is limited. It's written in simple terms. I hate to disappoint you, but everything can't be summed up in a "sound byte". Some things require a little more in depth analysis.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Wrong, read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was considered immutable by the people who fouded the document.

These people, perhaps you're familiar with them?

George Washington Virginia
George Read Delaware
Gunning Bedford, Jr. Delaware
John Dickinson Delaware
Richard Bassett Delaware
Jacob Broom Delaware
James McHenry Maryland
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland
Daniel Carroll Maryland
John Blair Virginia
James Madison Jr. Virginia
William Blount North Carolina
Richard Dobbs Spaight North Carolina
Hugh Williamson North Carolina
John Rutledge South Carolina
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina
Charles Pinckney South Carolina
Pierce Butler South Carolina
William Few Georgia
Abraham Baldwin Georgia
John Langdon New Hampshire
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts
Rufus King Massachusetts
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut
Roger Sherman Connecticut
Alexander Hamilton New York
William Livingston New Jersey
David Brearly New Jersey
William Paterson New Jersey
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania
Robert Morris Pennsylvania
George Clymer Pennsylvania
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania
James Wilson Pennsylvania
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania

James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in "Essay #10" of The Federalist Papers: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

__________________
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." ~Thomas Paine

The dictionary would be nice, since that is the reference everyone else uses. Any major dictionary would do.

He is wrong because he is not the final authority on Mathematics.

By contrast, most people would agree that the dictionary is the final authority on what the meaning of a given word is.

It didnt require very thorough research...just a few seconds reading the dictionary definition. Anyone could do it. Probably even you.

The dictionary does not support your opinion. I'm sorry you disagree with the dictionary.

Maybe. But this can.

That is another common misconception. The Bill of rights is simply the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. They can be changed via successive amentments...just like any of the others.

What exactly leads you to believe that the Bill of Rights can never be amended itself? What law prevents us from doing that?

Says who? Please be specific.

What part of the Constitution says that the bill of rights is immutable?

So? Even assuming you are correct, their word is not law. Sorry.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

According to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper, while in a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what’s for supper and the sheep are well armed.

That's not logical. The truth is the truth.

The Catholic church was once the authority on whether the earth was the center of the universe (they claimed it was) , did that make them right?

__________________
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." ~Thomas Paine

How does that prevent us from amending any of the amendments in the Bill of rights?

The preamble simply states their desire; the intent of the Bill of Rights. It doesnt say that it can never be changed.

Apparently, we fall under the first system. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.

Who gets the final say in what a given word means if not the dictionary?

The analogy is flawed. Mathematics is an exact science, so it is common to everyone regardless of beliefs. Language is not, because it is subjective. The dictionary represents how the majority of the population uses a given word.

To Catholics it did.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Nice to know that you're a closet leftist SS, after all you don't believe in the very founding ideals of this country.

That is exactly what makes Neo-Cons so dangerous, they're leftists who don't realize it.

That was the intent. It was intended that the bill of rights was sacrosanct and never to be changed.

And that still didn't make them right, they were still wrong, just as you are wrong here.

__________________
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." ~Thomas Paine

Regardless of the political science semantics involved, I think that some fellow libertarians misunderstand whence liberty arises. The old European monarchies were extremely authoritarian. What made America different? Power was less concentrated. I don't believe that the majority rules by right or even that the majority is necessarily correct more often than the minority, but the essential principle is that the more power is concentrated, the more corrupt it becomes and the less liberty those in power will permit. In that way, it was by progress towards democracy that a relatively libertarian nation (the United States) emerged. Ultimately no liberty can result from minority rule. It follows logically, therefore, that the ultimate goal of liberty can come about only with the cooperation of the majority.
Consider, moreover, what countries in history have been the least free. Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Pol Pot's Cambodia have to be among the least free nations in history, and from that lack of freedom came the power of those states to murder millions of people. China under Mao and Italy under Mussolini also come to mind. What did they all have in common? They were all undemocratic. It is not merely that concentrated power becomes corrupt, moreover. A position of authority over others is attractive to those with corrupt and disordered minds- hence the horrible democides of the 20th century. I don't think that the end justifies the means or that American intervention can ultimately spread democracy, so I will never agree with S-S about foreign policy, but unfortunately, I have to agree with him about the fundamental importance of democracy. Yes, the majority can and often does make terrible decisions, but it is better to accept those decisions than to attempt to impose one's will on the majority. That results in de facto dictatorship. The Constitution should always be followed, but every letter of it should be changeable. It is Orwellian to imagine that one can "impose rights". Those rights must be agreed upon by the majority of people to be realized.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/...s/repvsdem.htm

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.


SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.


COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

__________________
A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough -- Ronald Reagan

Okay, Force (or a Libertarian), please do me a favor: Start a thread on zoning laws and why they should be abolished. I'm frankly curious. I mean, I think I know the basic reasoning -- individual property rights are sacrosanct and not to be infringed by the government -- but I really want to know why y'all think doing away with zoning laws altogether is a good idea.

__________________
Man up.

Actually, I oppose zoning laws for a much more pragmatic reason: They slow down commerce. That hurts the economy. I don't oppose zoning laws in theory so much as in practice, since government planning of economies is notoriously poor and at any rate naturally slower than the "invisible hand".

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)