The United States – Democracy vs. Republic What Are We?

By | February 18, 2012

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The United States – Democracy vs. Republic What Are We?”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

0 thoughts on “The United States – Democracy vs. Republic What Are We?

  1. Horizon3

    In answer to the articles question we are now a democracy and have been since ratification of the 17th Amendment.
    When this amendment was ratified the Senators were no longer chosen by their states legislatures, the states lost their advocacy in Federal government.

    What we have now are two houses of representatives with one of them limited to two reps per state.

    This not only limits the states rights, but makes it possible for one party to gain complete control of the federal government.
    I am sure most of you would agree that given recent history, ie. Pelosi and Reids Congress that, that is a VERY bad idea.

    1. Gina Aveni Post author

      Yes indeed Horizon. 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators (1913)
      The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, made the Senate an assembly where the states would have equal representation. Each state legislature would elect two senators to 6-year terms. Late in the 19th century, some state legislatures deadlocked over the election of a senator when different parties controlled different houses, and Senate vacancies could last months or years. In other cases, special interests or political machines gained control over the state legislature. Progressive reformers dismissed individuals elected by such legislatures as puppets and the Senate as a “millionaire’s club” serving powerful private interests.

      One Progressive response to these concerns was the “Oregon system,” which utilized a state primary election to identify the voters’ choice for Senator while pledging all candidates for the state legislature to honor the primary’s result. Over half of the states adopted the “Oregon system,” but the 1912 Senate investigation of bribery and corruption in the election of Illinois Senator William Lorimer indicated that only a constitutional amendment mandating the direct election of Senators by a state’s citizenry would allay public demands for reform.

      When the House passed proposed amendments for the direct election of Senators in 1910 and 1911, they included a “race rider” meant to bar Federal intervention in cases of racial discrimination among voters. This would be done by vesting complete control of Senate elections in state governments. A substitute amendment by Senator Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas provided for the direct election of Senators without the “race rider.” It was adopted by the Senate on a close vote before the proposed constitutional amendment itself passed the Senate. Over a year later, the House accepted the change, and on April 8, 1913, the resolution became the 17th amendment. (www.ourdocuments.gov)

      And so the progressive movement begins…again

      Thank you Horizon.
      Regards,
      g

  2. WillofLa

    I spoke to an elderly lady one time about when Roosevelt put out the call for everyone to turn in all their gold. She said he pleaded with the people of America to send him their gold, “…because” he said, “your government is about to run out of money.” She said that during the Depression everyone knew what it meant to be almost out of money, as many were experiencing. She said he acted like the government was going through the same kind of suffering as the people. That turned out to be a lie. She said the government was never out of money, “…and now they had all our gold that took us years to save up for just for times like these (the Depression). And now we were the only one’s broke, because we believed he was telling us the truth.”

    So there you are folks. Right from the mouth of a woman who sent Roosevelt her gold. She said that,” There was something about it that didn’t seem right.” And she said that, “People hid their gold and only sent in some of it.” The rest they kept because without a job that’s all they had. She said they would only sell one coin, but only if they had to and there was no other way around it. She said, “It was against the law to have them (the coins) and the police would arrest you if they found out you had any gold”

    Oh yeah, people. I can see this happening right now with Obama, except it will be something else very valuable to us, and may very well be gold again. Just like the Socialist Democrats want to get their greedy hands on our 401K’s to put them into the Social Security “Fund” and when we retire a certain amount is added to our Social Security monthly check at a formulated amount, a percentage. Oh yeah. And like they stole our mothers S.S. and made her pick her’s or her husbands which ever was greater, and of course the husbands was greater because he made more than his wife. And didn’t it take both of their checks to take care of them while they worked, why would it take less just because they aren’t working anymore? With prices going up all the time, that little check she got every month was smaller and smaller for what it could buy.

    I say wipe out both political parties and only elect men who are conservative who have good ideas about whatever it would be. Also to, wipe out the debt. We don’t owe a single penny of that money anyway, it’s all unConstitutional. And spending was already paid for because they already had the money to pay for some program. Otherwise how could they institute it until they collected the money. So when ever you hear them say a bill has to be paid for but it’s going to take affect right now is a lie. Either they are paying for it now with money from somewhere, or they can’t act on it and it’s activation would have to wait until they had the money.

    Besides why does a bill cost money to institute if there is nothing physical being bought and used. If it’s just words as most laws are, a different way to do something from the way it was done before, then all they should have to do is put the word out that from now on so-in-so is being done this way now. Why does that cost billions of dollars to do? I say it’s a lie. They are lieing to us just so they can raise taxes and claim it’s paying for something that the money can’t pay for. What the money is paying for is just words about some law change from one way to another. Nothing is being bought or paid for so how can words cost money to the tune of billions of dollars? It doesn’t, that’s just it, we’re being lied to.

    We don’t owe this money they claim we owe. Write it off!! There would be no loss because there isn’t anything to loose when nothing was done with the money other than paying for a law to be reworded and done differently from the way it was done before. We don’t owe the money!!

    1. Gina Aveni Post author

      Thank you again for the comment. The woman was right about Roosevelt and calling for everyone to turn in their gold; there is a huge demand for gold now (same as then) driving the price of gold up to around 2k along with silver and other precious metals — since our govt keeps printing money for problem to spend, which in turn deflates the value of the dollar, and is driving up the price of gold and other metals. If the dollar is worthless (like during the depression) then gold and silver become the currency.

      With regard to pension and social security that entitlement program began years ago as well, but was also not something intended by founders. That being said the real problem began with the Clinton administration with Bill taking money from Social Security to spend on what he wanted and putting in IOU’s (treasury bonds) where the money was suppose to be. The problem is government spending year after year after year…many of the these bills they are passing do not have the consent of the average American, the president is bi-passing congress and doing whatever he wants. The bills themselves do not cost money it is the implementation of them that costs e.g. all the bailouts. Thank you again, next time leave a name. lol.

      Regards,
      g

  3. WillofLa

    Read and buy one for a friend, Mark Levin’s new book “Ameritopia”, and you will understand why our forefathers created a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. There is a big difference between the two. Democracies fail, Constitutional Republic’s don’t. Of course America is the first time a country was ever formed based on all the good things about government from all the great writers about truth and freedom and liberty. America is based on being a nation made up of sovereign individuals who have rights given to them by God, the right to life, the right to freedom and liberty, and the right to pursue happiness without any man taxing him, regulating him, or taking from him any of those things mentioned beforehand like freedom, liberty, and the desire to pursue happiness.

    Obama is doing exactly that by using fancy words that are full of twisted up terms and phrases that were taught to him way back when he was young when he sat at the knee of his mother, a card carrying Socialist, her parents who were card carrying Socialist/Communists, and when he was in college at the knee of Saul Alinsky and Communist, Franklin Marshall Davis a Communist, and when Obama started his political career he became life long friends with Bill Ayers a Socialist/Communist/domestic terrorist/radical militant leftist. So Barry Obama has had most of his formative years learning how to apply the Communist Manafesto, Cloward-Piven to America in order to destroy it’s economic system, remove it’s Christian foundation from affecting it’s society, and eliminate the Constitution from it’s law making processes, take all state rights away by making a centralized government the ultimate law giver. And Obama is very educated in how to do all those things. Obama is seeing to it that the “Dreams of his father”, who by the way was a Socialist/Communist in Kenya come true here.

    1. Gina Aveni Post author

      Yes, indeed Willofla, it is a state of affairs. I don’t think anyone would argue that President Obama is quite the eloquent speaker. Take a look on his latest statements while campaigning re: Boeing — he is the reason Boeing did not open a plant in GA – he relies on people forgetting or not knowing; that is how he got into office in the first place: HOPE and CHANGE.
      Thank you for your posting. Regards, g

  4. Jeff Pritchard

    How true! Now, let me ask you guys a few questions. How many of your readers would agree with me in opposing Marxist/Humanist Global Government? How many would say we need to replace Congressmen, not just Obama, who support and serve such government efforts to undermine our Constitution? How many of you on the staff of this site and the readers would agree with me that we need to oppose this, not just by blogs and protests, but by actually taking back those seats of power and replacing them with those of us, as imperfect as we may be, but are willing to pursue righteous rule in line with our Founders’ Original Intents?

    Well, let’s find out who believes that my “Republican” incumbent should be replaced. Let’s find out who would support such an effort to replace him, not just with prayers and pats on the back, but with cash and elbow grease. This is not an appeal for money yet, just an appeal for those reading this to judge for yourselves and cast your votes on the webpolls on the following website.

    Does the incumbent need to be replaced? Should the working man on this website run against him? Will you support him if he does? Look and vote for yourself.

    http://www.jeffpritchardforcongress.com

    If you like what you see, share with all you know. 10x10x10… Less than 2 months until filing date. If few sound off and rally to the call for help, the challenger will not bother with it.

    Good article. Let’s see who actually believes in doing something productive, like taking back our Congress.

    Thank you for allowing me to post.
    Jeff

    1. Gina Aveni Post author

      Hello Jeff and thank you for your reply. I appreciate the comments and so on. I would hope that mainstream American is waking up in lew of what is at stake. Yes, this is not just an Obama issue it is a party issue as well, both sides. I do hope Americans are becoming more engaged and understanding about what is truly at risk, rather than remaining distracted and too involved in other things.

      Regards and good luck to you,
      gina