America should be turned into a democracy

[nate895]

The Iraq War Resolution wouldn't have passed a 95% majority call, either. When unjust or unconstitutional longlasting laws like the PATRIOT Act would have passed anyway, that's precisely why I support invalidation by jury. Nullification by the states is great, but we've already seen that it's just not enough.

It was enough in the case of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

 

[powerofreason]

The vote was 388-1 in the House (who was the no vote), 82-0 in the Senate. The problem is when it come to a vote by the people.

I don't think he suggested a democratic vote. Just a higher vote % for the representatives which I agree with completely.

 

[Mini-Me]

It was enough in the case of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

First of all, that was at the very beginning of our republic, when the states still had a backbone and when their legislatures were full of patriots, not career politicians (just like the federal government).

Secondly, I'm not saying it's never been used before or that it isn't useful. It's still a great tool, and every bit helps. In the end, it may be what we will use to restore the republic. However, I AM saying that it obviously wasn't enough to prevent a situation like what we have today from happening. The problem is that the republic needs to be restored in the first place. Once we do succeed in bringing it back, it will only be after years of hard work and sweat and tears (and hopefully not blood, but that may be as well). After time, people will once again become apathetic and spineless, just as they have in the centuries between the Alien and Sedition Acts and now. By recognizing this, we can fix the small mistakes our Founders and Framers made which allowed our situation today to unfold. One of those mistakes was ignoring the fact that over time, later generations would not fully comprehend their sacrifice, and they'd become complacent and forget the revolutionary mentality. Even after we succeed in bringing back limited government, the complacency will once again seep into our grandchildren's grandchildren. The only way to prevent this from ever happening again is to implement an even stronger and more direct procedural check by the people...and while you're free to disagree, I personally believe that law invalidation by jury is one of the greatest and strongest checks we can add to make our system of government more foolproof.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

We already are in a democracy. No? http://www.indirectdemocracy.com/

Minority loses, either way

 

[billbob]

The demographics are so much different in sweden. The US is so diverse, and for that reason the most power should be left to the states.

Of course state powers have suffered much since the civil war...

A constitutional republic as it existed prior to 1863, and prefferably just after jackson killed the fed, is the best system the world will ever know.

The most power is also left to the states (cantons) here in Switzerland (not Sweden ).

We have the same rights on Cantons level as we have on country level. And Switzerland is also one of the most diversed countries! We have 4 national languages, are in the Heart of Europe and have a lot of immigrants. That's also a reason why our small country is still 'divided' by 26 Cantons.

 

[nate895]

First of all, that was at the very beginning of our republic, when the states still had a backbone and when their legislatures were full of patriots, not career politicians (just like the federal government).

Secondly, I'm not saying it's never been used before or that it isn't useful. It's still a great tool, and every bit helps. In the end, it may be what we will use to restore the republic. However, I AM saying that it obviously wasn't enough to prevent a situation like what we have today from happening. The problem is that the republic needs to be restored in the first place. Once we do succeed in bringing it back, it will only be after years of hard work and sweat and tears (and hopefully not blood, but that may be as well). After time, people will once again become apathetic and spineless, just as they have in the centuries between the Alien and Sedition Acts and now. By recognizing this, we can fix the small mistakes our Founders and Framers made which allowed our situation today to unfold. The only way to prevent this from ever happening again is to implement an even stronger and more direct procedural check by the people...and while you're free to disagree, I personally believe that law invalidation by jury is one of the greatest and strongest checks we can add to make our system of government more foolproof.

I agree with almost all forms of nullification. As you said, every little bit helps, but I don't think this is really in the interest of freedom, as you will always have dissenters, and this could be extended against us in the future, if the opposition should ever gain as many seats as they have now. There will never be enough we can do to prevent tyranny, it will eventually happen, and the world will eventually come to an end, it is just a matter of will it be sooner?, or will it be later?

 

[FindLiberty]

What if all the old bald headed farts and grey haired ladies vote to have the highest income tax bracket changed to ONLY apply to all those "youngsters" who are under 30 years of age? They might do this so that only those 30 years old and older can enjoy free gubermint healthcare. Would that be good use of the baby boomer's democratic vote majority? (Don't bother to answer if you are under 30 years old 'cause we old farts are not even taking your vote into consideration and we sure are not going to point out that this is supposed to be a republic and not a democracy.)

If you are still young and don't want to work for slave wages at a 80% income tax bracket, we can use THE LAW to send forth government thugs to come after you in order to make good use of your organs and blood... all for the good of the aging majority.

Have a nice day.

 

[Mini-Me]

I agree with almost all forms of nullification. As you said, every little bit helps, but I don't think this is really in the interest of freedom, as you will always have dissenters, and this could be extended against us in the future, if the opposition should ever gain as many seats as they have now. There will never be enough we can do to prevent tyranny, it will eventually happen, and the world will eventually come to an end, it is just a matter of will it be sooner?, or will it be later?

Well, keep in mind that nullifying checks can only strike down laws*; they cannot instate new ones. As it conveniently turns out, freedom does not require very many laws at all. We obviously need laws against criminal violence, theft, etc. at the state/local level, which almost everyone seems to agree upon except for violent criminals themselves...but at the federal level, what do we actually desperately need in terms of laws which we would have tyranny without? Keep in mind that nullification wouldn't be able to change the overall process or structure of government, i.e. it can't get rid of a Constitutional limitation on government.

*By the way, when I'm talking about juries invalidating laws, I'm talking about something more than ordinary jury nullification; I'm talking about citizens actually being able to file suit against an unconstitutional law to have it literally and procedurally invalidated all across its jurisdiction by a majority vote by jury.

 

[nate895]

Well, keep in mind that nullifying checks can only strike down laws; they cannot instate new ones. As it conveniently turns out, freedom does not require very many laws at all. We obviously need laws against criminal violence, theft, etc. at the state/local level, which almost everyone seems to agree upon except for violent criminals themselves...but at the federal level, what do we actually desperately need in terms of laws which we would have tyranny without? Keep in mind that nullification wouldn't be able to change the overall process or structure of government, i.e. it can't get rid of a Constitutional limitation on government.

True, which is why I support nullification, as I said. As for laws, things change over time, and while I am not one of those "living, breathing, Constitution" types, sometimes laws become outdated and we should make a new one with the same powers. It is possible we couldn't get a bill passed that provided for an Air Force, or a decent sized Navy. Or, it could go the other way around, and there could be enough representatives to prevent a downsizing of the Navy if we don't need as much of one.

 

[Mini-Me]

True, which is why I support nullification, as I said. As for laws, things change over time, and while I am not one of those "living, breathing, Constitution" types, sometimes laws become outdated and we should make a new one with the same powers. It is possible we couldn't get a bill passed that provided for an Air Force, or a decent sized Navy. Or, it could go the other way around, and there could be enough representatives to prevent a downsizing of the Navy if we don't need as much of one.

Well, technically speaking, the Air Force should have probably been added via a Constitutional Amendment anyway, meaning it couldn't be invalidated like a normal law...
You do have a point that not everyone will be able to agree on the precise subjective size of our armed forces. However, from what I understand, aren't those decisions made by the executive branch anyway, according to how much funding Congress allows?

I did mention in another thread (where I was again talking about my "law invalidation by jury" idea) that one-time laws that cannot reasonably be taken back, like the annual budget, should probably be exempt from invalidation - although the laws permitting certain taxes to raise that money would not be exempt.

 

[billbob]

Ohh By the way... Here a funny Movie about Ron Paul, USA and Switzerland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYUvqJ1Od_k

 

[Vet_from_cali]

uhhh, i'd much rather have the majority vote on issues than a select few that are SUPPOSE to represent the majority. no one wants the war, where is that at? majority didnt want the bail out, where is that at? if the majority voted it would be better than the BS going on right now. they cant buy all of us, but they sure as hell bought the representatives that vote for us. u blind bats need to see the current system isn't working, its corrupted ffs

 

[nate895]

Well, technically speaking, the Air Force should have probably been added via a Constitutional Amendment anyway, meaning it couldn't be invalidated like a normal law...
You do have a point that not everyone will be able to agree on the precise subjective size of our armed forces. However, from what I understand, aren't those decisions made by the executive branch anyway, according to how much funding Congress allows?

I did mention in another thread (where I was again talking about my "law invalidation by jury" idea) that one-time laws that cannot reasonably be taken back, like the annual budget, should probably be exempt from invalidation - although the laws permitting certain taxes to raise that money would not be exempt.

Not with the Navy and Air Force. The Congress provides for specific ships and airplanes, and requires at least minimums. Such as right now, Congress is POed because the Navy refuses to maintain naval artillery support vessels for amphibious landings despite Congress's law to the contrary.

 

[Mini-Me]

Not with the Navy and Air Force. The Congress provides for specific ships and airplanes, and requires at least minimums. Such as right now, Congress is POed because the Navy refuses to maintain naval artillery support vessels for amphibious landings despite Congress's law to the contrary.

That's interesting, and I did not know that. Still, I somehow doubt a citizen would really get pissed off enough about specific numbers of ships or something like that that they'd actually use their money to file suit, then be able to convince the majority of a jury to agree that the law is "unjust" or "unconstitutional." I think time has shown that juries usually take their duties pretty seriously.

Still, your point is well-taken, and if a Constitutional Amendment were adopted allowing that kind of invalidation, a few very well-worded and unambiguous limits might have to be put on it that prevent people from trying to invalidate annual budgets (which cannot be reasonably revoked) or specific decisions involving government departments like the armed forces, without exempting laws which directly infringe on citizens' rights, like taxes, inflationary practices, or the PATRIOT Act. Some very careful wording would have to be chosen to qualitatively differentiate various types of laws so citizens could invalidate tyrannical laws and practices without being able to just screw up the orderly functioning of things.

 

[Josh_LA]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

Marx would be proud of you.
(Hey, don't take it the wrong way, I'm not saying Marx is wrong or evil)

 

[Truth Warrior]

1) "Pearl Harbor was an inside job."

2) Voters in the USA are a MINORITY of "We the People".

 

[angelatc]

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

 

[angelatc]

uhhh, i'd much rather have the majority vote on issues than a select few that are SUPPOSE to represent the majority. no one wants the war, where is that at? majority didnt want the bail out, where is that at? if the majority voted it would be better than the BS going on right now. they cant buy all of us, but they sure as hell bought the representatives that vote for us. u blind bats need to see the current system isn't working, its corrupted ffs

Repeal the 17th Amendment! Make the Senate answer to the Governors.

 

[nate895]

Repeal the 17th Amendment! Make the Senate answer to the Governors.

You mean the state legislatures?

 

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

The majority were for the invasions.

The majority are for the bailout, even if they don't know it yet. As the economy declines, the screams for a bailout will increase. I don't see mob rule solving much of anything.

"I have a very clear analogy for you:

Democracy: Two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Representative Democracy: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep elect two wolves and one sheep to vote on what to have for dinner

Constitutional Republic: (The U.S.) Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep elect two wolves and one sheep to vote on what to have for dinner, but are restricted by a constitution that says they can't eat sheep.

Socialism: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep elect a single wolf that distributes different portions of sheep to each wolf.

Communism: The single wolf from before runs out of sheep, so instead distributes the same amount of spam to every wolf.

Fascism: The single wolf never leaves power and runs out of spam. Invades other countries for more sheep and spam."

We are in the mess we are as a result of moving away from the Constitution and replacing the Constitution with democracy. The Constitution is flawed too, though...

“Democracy is ... the only path to national success and dignity.” —George W. Bush

http://www.DemocracyIsNotFreedom.com (Not my Web site.)

Democracy Is Not Freedom
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html