Republic vs. Democracy

Very good rendition of the actual facts... the politicians have forgotten they work for us and continue to pander their personal agendas.

The worst part is that the stupid people don't even realize they are slowly losing their freedom to the very elitists they think will save them... I guess that's why all the facts are slowly disappearing from the history books. And the people are too stupid to figure it out for themselves...

The following is a good analogy of the different forms of government... some don't even know the difference... too bad... if the people were educated properly then this would not be possible.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Thank you for your comment Bob. I appreciate it. But I wouldn't say it's entirely the peoples' fault. Democracy just sounds better on paper. People like the idea of having political power. Power its an intoxicating incentive. As Dennis Miller once said "Compared to power, crack is Fruitopia."

People want the government to do things for them, but they don't realize that government can't do anything for them better than they could do on their own. Government is good at protecting rights and enforcing law. That's it. People don't understand that and the way history books throw the word 'democracy' around so liberally is sickening.

Also, thanks for the link!

Good general analysis, but your specifics are off.

"The passage of proposition 8 in California which banned gay marriage was a perfect example of a majority imposing their will to strip an equal right from a minority"

The majority in this case is following the limited principles in the Constitution which do not grant "equal rights" to marriage. Such cultural traditions are left to the states to determine. Honoring original intent is crucial in maintaining limited government.

States can make their own laws on such cultural issues and the majority have clarified that they want traditional marriage upheld.

Language is important in human life and so are cultural traditions. Gays can have civil unions and show respect for America's traditions by not attributing to every debate about the facts and opinions the slur of "hate speech" to avoid responsibility for clear thinking and the social consequences of cultural decay.

To continue down that road of cherry picking which constitutional principles some will follow while smearing one's opponents as Perez Hilton recently did is to function as a tool for anarchy and tyranny's refabrication.

That outcome will not only destroy intelligent and respectful arguments, but it will flash the green light to the real wolves worldwide who are laying in wait for their hapless, out-of-control victims.

Thanks for your comments, but I chose Prop 8 for a reason. While you are correct that the states have the powers to delegate local affairs, there is still the supremacy clause in the constitution. That states that if any state were to pass a measure that infringed on individual rights, denying such rights from certain individuals that others have, then it is unconstitutional. With Prop 8 it denied equal protections under the law for a group of individuals, in this case gays. Say what you will about civil unions, they still do not constitute the same equal rights as married couples. If it did then this wouldn't be a problem. But it is. In a republic one individual cannot be denied the rights by the majority. That is why the measure goes against the nature of a republic. It's letting the majority deny equal protections to a minority. And as Harvey Milk once said, if you can take away the rights of one individual you can take away the rights of anybody.

I greatly appreciate your reference to Ancient Greece on these two principles. I do agree with some of the comments made by others on Prop 8. The overturning is and of itself tyranny against settled law. When the will of the people is circumvented by courts,right or wrong,the courts have acted outside of their purpose and intent. This is a condition that has run ramped in our system. Courts forcing the legislature to "make law" in the area of "same sex marriage". This is not their role. Nor is it their role to overturn the will of the people in a valid election process where all of the positions have had ample time to be evaluated and assessed. For whatever reason, the majority of participating voters voted against same sex marriage,be it narrow mindedness, religious compulsion or symantic satisfaction.

The overall issue is, and the question must be raised, "Who and what "is" The United States of American and on what is its identity"? Fundamental,as "I" understand it,it's a Democracy tempered by law. The changing or altering of that law has a lawful process as well. It isn't up to the executors of law to change and alter it at their discresion. There is rule of law to protect the law.

If this isn't held up,from where are we to draw guidelines to serve the greater good and benefit of the populous while at the same time establishing and maintaining the very proposition that made this country necessary in the first place?
Just a thought.....

Thank you very much for your comments, Earl. I appreciate your input. But how is your criticism of Prop 8 valid in the context of this country being a republic? I mentioned in the post that democracy fails because it allows the majority to impose their will on a minority. The founding fathers understood that the people as a whole can be swayed into mob rule or driven by majority whims. That's why they went with a republic. In the case of Prop 8, it is a classic example of the majority imposing their will on a minority. The courts are right to oppose the majority when the majority wishes to deny certain individuals equal protection under the law. As it stood, heterosexuals had a right homosexuals didn't. That's not equal protection under the law. The courts are right to enforce equality over majority whims. That's the essence of a republic and why Prop 8 was against the tenants of American principle.

I beg to differ with you on Socialism. On paper or in practice, who determines the indiviual's needs and abilities should be the individual himself as he deals with specific circumstances in life. The main fault for socialism is the notion that there exists an optimum desirable state of being to be in harmony with society. That presupposes a social arbiter, purveyor of good and evil, in short a bureuacrat, to modulate the individual's state of being, well or ill, if you will.

I agree, Junni, the idea of socialism is good on paper. But it does negate human nature as you said. Bureaucrats are not psychic. They cannot accommodate all the needs of an individual, nor can they get together the aqueduct resources let alone distribute them efficiently. In a perfect world with perfect people, socialism would probably work just fine. But this isn't a perfect world. Human beings are just too diverse. That's why law and order must come from the bottom up and that's why a republic is best suited for doing so.

One of the basic tenents of the contstution says that whatever is not mentioned in the constitution is left for the states to decide. This negates the gay rights issue, and as a matter of fact the abortion issue. Both should be decided by the states. Made a law and the judiciary has no right to change the law, just interperate it. I have no dought that Prop 8 will be overturned by zealots in future elections. Would it be right for a conservative judge to revers that decision on the basis of history, or tradition? It is the same thing as a liberal judge overturning a law because of his beliefs. If it does carry on the the supreme court, they should not hear the case since it is a state right by fair vote not covered by the constitution.

You are right Clawdan. Issues such as abortion, marriage, etc. should be delegated to the states. That's what the 10th amendment is all about. But it's also important to remember the supremacy clause in the constitution. It states that whenever a state law conflicts with the constitution, the constitution overrules the state law. So when a state passes a law that would deny a group of people, like homosexuals, a right that other groups have then it ceases to treat them as individuals with equal protections under the law. That is why state laws like Prop 8 would be unconstitutional because it's denying equal protections for certain groups. When it comes to judges, it doesn't matter their political leanings. Their decisions should be based on the constitution and not ideology.