isadore;1154970 wrote:Actually the Declaration of Independence is more defining of basis for our government, our social contract with it. We had a Constitution before the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, it was transient.

Con_Alma;1154958 wrote:Because you continue to support the argument that they produce dependence and that they are not keeping us from human suffering on a monumental scale. You pay them lip service then consistently work to undervalue them and consider them a threat.

Con_Alma wrote:I don't believe, however, that there would be suffering on a monumental scale.

Con_Alma;1154978 wrote:The nature or fact that it's transient doesn't diminish the fact that it exists and defines the manner we function.

isadore;1154982 wrote:It is you that said their elimination would not produce monumental suffering. I dont have to read anything into it, just quote. You eliminate those programs and there will be suffering on a monumental scale, you can quote me on that....

Con_Alma;1154983 wrote:"A Representative Democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."Scheb, John M. An Introduction to the American Legal System. Thomson Delmar Learning 2001. p. 6

isadore;1154984 wrote:And the fact that there is an utimate authority the people that overrules it, makes the definition of us as a representative democracy more descriptive and true.

isadore;1154988 wrote:do you think scheb is God and has just changed the spelling of his name. Ultimately we live in a nation that is a democracy in which the ultimate power is not vested in a document but in the people themselves.

Con_Alma;1154986 wrote:Yes, I did say that. Lol. You just don't get it do you?

Social Safety nets keep people from suffering. If they were not present, however, I still don't think there would be "monumental suffering".

That monumental word is a descriptive choice of yours that I disagree with. It doesn't mean that I don't believe there is benefit in having social safety nets of certain levels to protect people from suffering. Just read what's there. You don't need to add to it.

Con_Alma;1154993 wrote:No I do not. I do, however, believe that where the power exists is not the determining factor in the definition of our form of government.

Con_Alma;1154991 wrote:Not according to legal authoritarians. By the people putting that constitution in place that limits the majority and their representation we fulfill the definition of a Constitutional Republic. It is a more descriptive type of representative democracy.

isadore;1154994 wrote:Maybe to you the Great Depression was just a minor irritant for the people of the time. During the Hoover Adminstration with none of those programs the suffering was monumental.

isadore;1154998 wrote:sheb does not know all. Ultimate power defines a state, autocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, democracy.

Con_Alma;1154999 wrote:I have not once referenced the Great Depression. I have only offered my opinion of today and what my opinion is today if such safety nets did not exist. That opinion contains the belief that such safety nets prevent suffering but without them there would not be a monumental suffering such as that which occurred during the Great Depression.

Now I have referenced it.

isadore;1155006 wrote:And this statement is based on what. Private charity and state welfrar failed to provided during the Great Depression. And they both cut back when the Great Recession hit. There seems to be no basis for thinking the suffering would be at as great a scale. Early Depression effects were cut by the fact that the majority lived on farms and could feed themselves. With the Great Depression that was no longer true and it is less true today.

Con_Alma;1155002 wrote:None of that statement negates the greater description of the US being a Constitutional Republic.

Con_Alma;1155009 wrote:What it's based on isn't nearly as important as the fact that we won't have to see such a thing because of the existing safety nets I believe we need and have. Isn't that what's important?

It's my opinion based on seeing the manner people rally around those in crisis.

isadore;1155346 wrote:It negates it completely. Declaration of Independence describe government as being based on the will of the people. It is the people who ordain and establish the Constitution. Where the people are sovereign you have a democracy.

isadore;1155357 wrote:Really end the safety net and what happens with an economic turn down
...

Con_Alma;1155918 wrote:The ordination and establishment of that constitution makes the nation a Constitutional Republic.

Con_Alma;1155919 wrote:That's just foolishness. I respectfully decline. I can't see a reason to end the safety net.

dwccrew;1155923 wrote:Who's winning?

isadore;1155934 wrote:you continously support the arguments of the people who want to destroy the safety net. 1. the claim safety produces dependency 2. on another thread that it kills ambition 3. that its demise would not cause monumental suffering. Along with that you claim that there will be a non governmental rallying around of the people that would prevent it. This was not seen in the period from 1929 to 1933 or at the beginning of the Great Recession. You stab and stab at the programs then you say oh lets keep them. Et tu Brute at least take credit for the crime.

isadore;1155930 wrote:Representatives of the people acting for them in a representative democracy created a transient document. Ultimately before at least since the Declaration of Independence, during and even after that document is altered or abolished the people remain the ultimate power. And that power is exercised through their elected representatives, a representative democracy.