Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[Occam]

Because a republic is a form of democracy. A representative democracy. As opposed to a direct democracy.

No, a Republic is a Republic. Depending on how it is chartered, it may use democratic mechanisms to do certain things. Mostly, our constitution leaves that up to the states. In virtually every regard, our constitution is a framework to prevent mob rule through what most people think of as big-D Democracy. The founders were very insightful that way: crowds make terrible decisions. Checks and balances that prevent democracy from burning witches, burning rights, burning property, burning the republic itself - that's what the constitution is all about. Pretending there's no difference between those two frameworks - philosophically, and practically - is what people do when they want the power returned to the mob, because they think the mob is on their side at the moment.

There's FAR more to our version of a republic than the fact that we use representatives in place of massive everyone-votes about everything all the time. The republic reins in the 51% mob, but it also reins in the 500 or so people they send to Washington. And it reins in the executive branch. And it reins in the judiciary. Leaving all of that out of your lecture while telling people they didn't pay attention in civics class is pretty funny.

 

[coinboy]

No, a Republic is a Republic. Depending on how it is chartered, it may use democratic mechanisms to do certain things. Mostly, our constitution leaves that up to the states. In virtually every regard, our constitution is a framework to prevent mob rule through what most people think of as big-D Democracy. The founders were very insightful that way: crowds make terrible decisions. Checks and balances that prevent democracy from burning witches, burning rights, burning property, burning the republic itself - that's what the constitution is all about. Pretending there's no difference between those two frameworks - philosophically, and practically - is what people do when they want the power returned to the mob, because they think the mob is on their side at the moment.

There's FAR more to our version of a republic than the fact that we use representatives in place of massive everyone-votes about everything all the time. The republic reins in the 51% mob, but it also reins in the 500 or so people they send to Washington. And it reins in the executive branch. And it reins in the judiciary. Leaving all of that out of your lecture while telling people they didn't pay attention in civics class is pretty funny.

 

[delaware_export]

agree… side note…

Surprised by the Number of smaller states signing up for the national plan to give their electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner.

some folks are stupid . very stupid

No, a Republic is a Republic. Depending on how it is chartered, it may use democratic mechanisms to do certain things. Mostly, our constitution leaves that up to the states. In virtually every regard, our constitution is a framework to prevent mob rule through what most people think of as big-D Democracy. The founders were very insightful that way: crowds make terrible decisions. Checks and balances that prevent democracy from burning witches, burning rights, burning property, burning the republic itself - that's what the constitution is all about. Pretending there's no difference between those two frameworks - philosophically, and practically - is what people do when they want the power returned to the mob, because they think the mob is on their side at the moment.

There's FAR more to our version of a republic than the fact that we use representatives in place of massive everyone-votes about everything all the time. The republic reins in the 51% mob, but it also reins in the 500 or so people they send to Washington. And it reins in the executive branch. And it reins in the judiciary. Leaving all of that out of your lecture while telling people they didn't pay attention in civics class is pretty funny.

 

[lazarus]

No, a Republic is a Republic. Depending on how it is chartered, it may use democratic mechanisms to do certain things. Mostly, our constitution leaves that up to the states. In virtually every regard, our constitution is a framework to prevent mob rule through what most people think of as big-D Democracy. The founders were very insightful that way: crowds make terrible decisions. Checks and balances that prevent democracy from burning witches, burning rights, burning property, burning the republic itself - that's what the constitution is all about. Pretending there's no difference between those two frameworks - philosophically, and practically - is what people do when they want the power returned to the mob, because they think the mob is on their side at the moment.

There's FAR more to our version of a republic than the fact that we use representatives in place of massive everyone-votes about everything all the time. The republic reins in the 51% mob, but it also reins in the 500 or so people they send to Washington. And it reins in the executive branch. And it reins in the judiciary. Leaving all of that out of your lecture while telling people they didn't pay attention in civics class is pretty funny.

And you’d still be wrong. A republic is a form of democracy. I guess you didn’t read the definition I posted. Or pay attention in civics/American gov’t. Likely why our country is doomed.

What you mention of the constitution is mostly true. But even with supposed protections of the majority over the minority tyranny in it, only of a handful of a things. We have checks and balances in there between the branches. But those aren’t perfect. And all of this is subject to change. Or we wouldn’t be up to 27 amendments. With enough of a super majority, we can even throw the whole thing in the waste basket and create an entirely new constitution and radically change our form of government.

A republic cannot “do some things democratically”. No, the fact of being a republic makes it a democratic form of government.

Our founders decided not to form a DIRECT democracy, but a representative democracy instead. They are both democracies.

 

[Bob A]

If we're all so fvcking smart, why are we living in a tyrannical Communist sh!thole?

 

[Occam]

And you’d still be wrong. A republic is a form of democracy. I guess you didn’t read the definition I posted. Or pay attention in civics/American gov’t. Likely why our country is doomed.

Yes, I'm the reason our country is doomed. Moving on...

What you mention of the constitution is mostly true. But even with supposed protections of the majority over the minority tyranny in it, only of a handful of a things.

What are you talking about? You've got it exactly backwards. The constitution exists PRECISELY to protect the minority from the tyranny of a democratic majority. Not minority tyranny. Majority tyranny. The Bill of Rights is about natural right you have regardless of what the majority thinks on any given day, and that the government can't go there.

We have checks and balances in there between the branches. But those aren’t perfect.

No kidding! So what? It's the best system ever devised. And it's got ways to change it baked in, with a VERY high bar to make sure it's not done frivolously or in the heat of some passing passion.

With enough of a super majority, we can even throw the whole thing in the waste basket and create an entirely new constitution and radically change our form of government.

Yes, a supermajority in the legislature, and then 37 states have to agree it's a good idea, with a non-trivial ratification process. And if we throw the whole thing out, then it's no longer the same country, and this conversation is moot. The country IS the constitution. Rip it apart, and you're not rebooting the constitution, you're rebooting the country. The odds of 37 states deciding to do that are vanishingly small.

A republic cannot “do some things democratically”.

A republic could do NOTHING democratically, if that's the way it was chartered. Our republic is chartered to do SOME things democratically (at the federal level), and to leave the vast majority of how the states do things up to the states. Some of those do things more democratically than others, with a different mix of powers vested in the legislature, judiciary, and executive at the county, municipal, and state levels.

No, the fact of being a republic makes it a democratic form of government.

The fact of constituting it as republic that identifies specific and limited democratic structures and procedures in specific parts of its governance makes it a republic that embraces democracy in those specific roles. Everything about the republic (the NATION's) charter is designed to balance powers across the three branches, but above all else to prevent the tyranny of democracy from rearing its ugly head. We're not a form of democracy, we're a republic that identifies when and how to use deliberately hobbled democracy in some expressly limited functions of federal governance. Local and state governance is a separate conversation, as it should be.

Our founders decided not to form a DIRECT democracy, but a representative democracy instead. They are both democracies.

Funny how they didn't call it any such thing.

 

[Occam]

If we're all so fvcking smart, why are we living in a tyrannical Communist sh!thole?

Because way more people are NOT fvcking smart.

 

[Bob A]

Because way more people are NOT fvcking smart.

Yeah, sad.

Also a good reason why pure democracy is not the best of all possible systems.

 

[Occam]

Also a good reason why pure democracy is not the best of all possible systems.

Lord Of The PTA Meeting Flies is just a terrible idea. Barely works when four friends are trying to decide where to go to dinner and how to split the check, fails completely at the medium-sized-village level, and is pure poison beyond that. Our founders saw that and make it - at the federal level - a minimalist necessary evil with handcuffs on it. They were smart.

 

[Biggfoot44]

If we're all so fvcking smart, why are we living in a tyrannical Communist sh!thole?

A. Maryland in particular is full of stupid/ greedy/ ignorant voters

B. Tyrannical Communists ( and their aligned lackeys and dupe ) massively manipulate the proceedings , and more than occasionally outright cheat .

C. A & B

 

[lazarus]

Yes, I'm the reason our country is doomed. Moving on...

What are you talking about? You've got it exactly backwards. The constitution exists PRECISELY to protect the minority from the tyranny of a democratic majority. Not minority tyranny. Majority tyranny. The Bill of Rights is about natural right you have regardless of what the majority thinks on any given day, and that the government can't go there.

No kidding! So what? It's the best system ever devised. And it's got ways to change it baked in, with a VERY high bar to make sure it's not done frivolously or in the heat of some passing passion.

Yes, a supermajority in the legislature, and then 37 states have to agree it's a good idea, with a non-trivial ratification process. And if we throw the whole thing out, then it's no longer the same country, and this conversation is moot. The country IS the constitution. Rip it apart, and you're not rebooting the constitution, you're rebooting the country. The odds of 37 states deciding to do that are vanishingly small.

A republic could do NOTHING democratically, if that's the way it was chartered. Our republic is chartered to do SOME things democratically (at the federal level), and to leave the vast majority of how the states do things up to the states. Some of those do things more democratically than others, with a different mix of powers vested in the legislature, judiciary, and executive at the county, municipal, and state levels.

The fact of constituting it as republic that identifies specific and limited democratic structures and procedures in specific parts of its governance makes it a republic that embraces democracy in those specific roles. Everything about the republic (the NATION's) charter is designed to balance powers across the three branches, but above all else to prevent the tyranny of democracy from rearing its ugly head. We're not a form of democracy, we're a republic that identifies when and how to use deliberately hobbled democracy in some expressly limited functions of federal governance. Local and state governance is a separate conversation, as it should be.

Funny how they didn't call it any such thing.

Sorry, I wrote that poorly, I meant the tyranny of the majority over the rights of the minority.

But much of what else you said is still wrong. Please, for the love of several things that are holy, go read what the definition of a democracy is. Our Republican style government is a representative democracy. You can keep believing that it only does some things democratically and is a republic and that means it’s not a democracy. But. That. Means. It’s. A. De. Moc. Ra. Cy.

Only a direct utopian democracy does all things democratically. Even a direct democracy like Athens did not do all things democratically. For example, they still elected an autocrat to exert executive power.

But Athens direct democracy and our representative democracy are both forms of democracy.

 

[Occam]

Sorry, I wrote that poorly, I meant the tyranny of the majority over the rights of the minority.

But much of what else you said is still wrong. Please, for the love of several things that are holy, go read what the definition of a democracy is. Our Republican style government is a representative democracy. You can keep believing that it only does some things democratically and is a republic and that means it’s not a democracy. But. That. Means. It’s. A. De. Moc. Ra. Cy.

Only a direct utopian democracy does all things democratically. Even a direct democracy like Athens did not do all things democratically. For example, they still elected an autocrat to exert executive power.

But Athens direct democracy and our representative democracy are both forms of democracy.

Where are you getting the phrase “representative democracy?’ Certainly not from the constitution or anyone who had a hand in writing it. They went out of their way to draw the distinction between a nation that is a democracy and a nation that is a republic. They chose the latter. They described it as such. Franklin said that’s what - after deliberation - was constructed, if we could keep it.

The vocal people most interested in tearing down the constitution and the republic it defines are the ones saying that INSTEAD of a republic we should have a democracy. The people who hate the republic are in fact quite clear they don’t consider it a democracy AS A CHARTERED FORM OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. They want the nation to be structured more like and run like California.

The electoral college is the republic in action. Trying to destroy it is capital-D democracy in action.

 

[lazarus]

Where are you getting the phrase “representative democracy?’ Certainly not from the constitution or anyone who had a hand in writing it. They went out of their way to draw the distinction between a nation that is a democracy and a nation that is a republic. They chose the latter. They described it as such. Franklin said that’s what - after deliberation - was constructed, if we could keep it.

The vocal people most interested in tearing down the constitution and the republic it defines are the ones saying that INSTEAD of a republic we should have a democracy. The people who hate the republic are in fact quite clear they don’t consider it a democracy AS A CHARTERED FORM OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. They want the nation to be structured more like and run like California.

The electoral college is the republic in action. Trying to destroy it is capital-D democracy in action.

It is called political science as well as dictionaries.

Madison made a distinction between a republic and pure democracies at the time, 240 years ago. Democracy has, for a very, very, long time now included Republics in its definition and discussed the differences in the Federalist papers as you alluded to.

Even by Lincoln's time, politicians described our country has being a democracy (who happened to be a Republican and believed in Republican ideals, not pure democratic ideals).

The words didn't exist at the time for "direct democracy" "representative democracy" "theocratic democracy" "chartered democracy" "limited monarchial democracy", etc.

Republics fall under the umbrella of "Democracy", which again in the current plain meaning (and the meaning for a couple of centuries now, is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. By today's meaning, and by its meaning for the vast majority of our country's existence, the US is in fact a Democracy. Just not a direct one, but a Repubic and thus a representative democracy.

Did you go to school in 1780? Or was it that you didn't pay attention in grade school? Because you do seem to be lost on what the definition of a democracy is, and what a direct and representative democracy are.

 

[Danimal619]

Yes, I'm the reason our country is doomed. Moving on...

Hey man, It's important to admit our faults. I respect that. Jk.

 

[Danimal619]

If we're all so fvcking smart, why are we living in a tyrannical Communist sh!thole?

If dolphins are so smart then why do they live in Igloos?

 

[cantstop]

There is no compromise in gun control. Those who want it will never stop. They will act as though they are conducting hearings and then pass the legislation they originally drafted. They will not stop until they have created a duality in citizenship. Those allowed to own weapons and others (who will face criminal charges just for owning weapons).
It is the class system our founders fought against. Yet, it is what every gun control activist wants to create.

 

[BurtonRW]

If dolphins are so smart then why do they live in Igloos?

They just haven't left yet. We've still got a little while before the Vogons show up.

-Rob

 

[hillbilly grandpa]

OK. I'm just a hillbilly with a West Virginia public school education. Somebody above posted an assertion about 37 states rarifying a constitutional amendment. I was taught that passage requires ratification by three quarters of the states. Since three quarters of 50 is 37.5 if you round down to 37 you don't meet the three quarters threshold. Passage requires rounding up to 38. In all this nuanced discussion it seems to me to be pretty important to get the non-debatable parts right. No, wait--you're going to debate that too?

 

[Danimal619]

They just haven't left yet. We've still got a little while before the Vogons show up.

-Rob

Did you say Gorgonites?

 

[Tomcat]

What is this thread about?

Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

Any news on this?