Why aren't we getting voting rights? Why are the Dems caving on democracy?

@Ironhand This is super silly, dude. A representative democracy is still a democracy,

@Ironhand Traitor.

@QuixoticSoul It's actually not. The founders were quite clear that they wanted a Constitutional Republic and not a representative democracy. That's the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights.

@Ironhand Literally nothing that you said there makes any damn sense lmao.

A republic is a representative democracy, that’s basically the definition of a republic. A representative democracy with a constitution is still a democracy.

The bill of rights doesn’t make the country any more or less of a representative democracy.

You’re completely turned around on the fundamentals of this stuff.

@QuixoticSoul Go look at the writings of the founders. Even in a "representative democracy" if a majority of representatives decided for example, that they would make private ownership of firearms illegal, they could. Our Constitution stops that cold.

@Ironhand You won’t make sense of the things founders wrote if you’re all turned around on the essential fundamentals. And almost every modern democracy has a constitution - this is not special.

@QuixoticSoul I'm not turned around on anything. We are a "representative democracy" because the people elect our representatives, but we govern as a Constitutional Republic. In a pure democracy, those elected can vote to strip fundamental rights away from a citizenry, because those rights come from the "government". In the United States, those rights are inalienable and cannot be removed.

@Ironhand [quote]n a pure democracy, those elected can vote to strip fundamental rights away from a citizenry, because those rights come from the "government". In the United States, those rights are inalienable and cannot be removed.[/quote]

It's not exceptional to America. In fact, it's universal. Every representative democracy also has a constitution and also has laws that protect or govern the rights of citizens.

[quote]In a pure democracy if a majority wants to take your shit, they can take your shit.[/quote]

Where is this pure democracy place? I might wanna take some shit off people so how do I get there?

@Ironhand Of course they can be removed, since the constitution provides for democratic means of amending it. Inalienable is a fanciful word in a system that used to allow for slavery, and denied women the right to vote.

We are a representative democracy with a constitution - a typical setup nowadays, nothing special about it. That in itself doesn’t even mean much - Venezuela is a constitutional republic too.

You are off on the “pure” democracy angle too - whether you’re using direct or representative democracy - you can still have a constitution. These things are not really related.

Revisit the fundamentals, yours are super fuzzy.

@QuixoticSoul You're wrong again. Are you honestly trying to say, that if the Legislative and Executive branch passed and signed into law, a ban on personal ownership of firearms in the United States, that it would be enacted? That's insane.

@Ironhand If they had 2/3th majority, they could. That's not an inalieable right. I was waiting till we came to that conclussion.

@Kwek00 Unless the Supreme Court strikes it down. And that's my point. There are always checks and balances.

@Ironhand [quote]You're wrong again. Are you honestly trying to say, that if the Legislative and Executive branch passed and signed into law, a ban on personal ownership of firearms in the United States, that it would be enacted? That's insane.[/quote]

He said it needs a constitutional amendment which is hard but can be done through democratic means:

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-u-s-constitution.aspx

America was founded as a constitutional republic with limited representative democray. As the franchise expanded, it remained a constitutional republic because [i]the two things are not mutually exclusive.[/i]

You can be a democracy and a republic. You can be one or neither of those things. I can eat a burger with fries or salad. It's still a burger.

What has any of this got to do with the bill which the Democrats are trying to pass?

@Ironhand No... the supreme court also abides by your constitution, and your constitution is open for change by a "supermajority".

What is unalieable are these 3 principles that form the basis for liberal ideas: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". And the believe in those principles for an American that believes in the constitution, are universal not only for the citizens. But the rights granted in the constitution still come from your lawmakers, because the people are free to forge their own destiny. It's not set in stone, it's made by human beings and thus later generations can change. It's not a traditionalist society where a group of people made a law like some form of God that has to be upheld for ever.

@Burnley123 Because under own system, voting laws are the domain of the States and not the Federal government.

@Ironhand The Supreme Court cannot strike down a constitutional amendment, which is a democratic action. Every aspect of the constitution can be changed if enough of a majority wants it.

No right is inalienable in a country where you used to be able to own people.

Btw, having checks and balances is also quite normal, and doesn’t somehow mean that US isn’t a representative democracy. You’re still utterly confused about what these categories mean.

@QuixoticSoul Well the big problem back then, is that people from Africa, were perceived as being sub-human and didn't really fall under the "all men" clause.

@Kwek00 If any of this stuff was truly inalienable, that wouldn’t have mattered. Turns out, everything is super alienable, and completely conditional to majority whims.

There is no better example of “majority taking your shit” than slavery in America.

@QuixoticSoul For as far as I'm aware, the "inalieable" right clause also only excists in the declaration of independence. Which has no legal basis in any court. This "inalieable rights" or natural rights idea, are just ideals to strive for. People that adopt them use them as premisses to build up their worldview, it's just a part of the enlightenment and liberalism in particulair. These 3 ideas: "life", "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" (or the pursuit of property) are also abstracts. That's why there are so many diffrent interpretations of liberal thought. the inn fighting in liberal ideologies is mostly about how these ideas are defined and should be strived for.

@Ironhand [quote] Because under own system, voting laws are the domain of the States and not the Federal government.[/quote]
That, btw - has very little to do with the country being a constitutional representative democracy, etc - it is an example of US being set up as a [i]federation[/i]. We could have had a unitary state - it would have still been a constitutional republic - and a democracy.

I don’t understand why these things have to be so confusing, but clearly lots of people are very confused.

@QuixoticSoul He and Sunsport both seem to have the same misunderstanding that "constitutional republic" means "a government set up exactly how the American right wing wants" instead of "a republic in which the government is defined by a constitution".