Featured "What right do they have to pick and choose what part of government gets funded?"

DOMA section 3 was legal and law until 2013; but in 2011, the Obama administration decided not to defend it in court. For two years, the executive branch did not fulfill their duty to uphold federal law.

What say you?

 

Absolutely wrong, Spending bills are initiated by the House but must also be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. Stop; watching Fox News and try to learn something about our Democracy. Yes I said Democracy.

 

The executive branch has no responsibility to defend cases in Federal Court. You, too should stop; watching Fox News which is strictly propaganda and is neither fair nor balanced.

 

So what you just said is that the federal government has no reponsibility to enforce its own laws.

The Department of Justice has the responsibility to enforce federal laws; and it falls under the executive branch of government. So yes, the executive branch DOES have responsibility to defend cases in Federal court.

I'll continue to watch Fox News, thank you; just as I also watch CNN, AP, Reuters, and other news sources. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.

 

Do you ever read the posts you respond to, or do you just shoot your electrons through the Internet hoping no one will notice you have a total disconnect with every discussion you join?

What part of that post said it was overturned? Not a word in it implied such. You'd make a great politician in the style of the Great Pretender, who loves to claim to repeat what his opponents said and respond to the words he puts in their mouths rather than responding to what was actually said. After all he -- and apparently you think this of yourself, too -- wouldn't look so good dealing with the truth.

 

The exact term is democratic-republic.

 

sticky.

 

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice.

Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches for checks and balance. Lawmaking in Democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the majority by polls and/or voter referendums, which in turn is mob rule 50% plus 1 vote takes away anything from the minority. Here is one example; if 51% of the people don’t pay taxes they can vote a tax increase on the 49% that do, which is mob rule.


Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly said that they had founded a republic in numerous quotes, and documents.


http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html

FTW is in bad need of some basic citizenship training . . .

Our military training manuals use to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

Below is what the Manual No. 2000-25 says in Section IX Lesson 9.

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 is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

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

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.


Unfortunately for us FTW is correct in so far as recognizing we now live in a democracy for all intents and purposes. The USA was founded as a republic sure enough but along the way collectivism slithered in and has wreaked havoc on our republic to the point where now Washington governs as if we were a democracy.

Isn't this exactly what we are witnessing today?

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. His right hand man, Harry Lloyd Hopkins, the New Deal architect, who suggested many of F.D.R.’s policies said.

 

The only argument he would have is that we are closer to a democracy now than at our founding.

Senators used to be elected by state legislatures, which is the sign of a Republic. We now elect Senators by popular vote. Although we still have the electoral college, electors used to be chosen by state legislatures in some states instead of popular vote. Also, and most important, almost anyone over 18 can now vote. That is greatly expanded from male, white, landowners.

Basically we are still a Republic. The House and Senate decide our laws. The President is still elected by an Electoral College. I do not believe we will ever see a direct popular election of the President, nor do I think it is a good idea. The closest we might ever get is the states deciding to make electoral votes proportional to popular vote instead of winner take all.

 

Sticky. :wavey:

 

A distortion of the facts. A democracy is ruled by a direct plebiscite of all eligible voters. A republic is ruled by the vote of representatives elected by all the voters. It's as simple as that and has nothing to do with being ruled by law as opposed to the mobs.

 

So the founders of our republic were wrong? Oopsies! How embarrassing for them eh? Must have been the rum.

 

Sticky. :type:

 

FTW, you will probably be amazed by this, but ...

 

If one wants to relate it to church government, congregational government is a democracy. Elder rule is a republic. The RCC is a dictatorship.