Drug Testing In Schools

[John Dibble]

The Bill of Rights is completely ignored. It might as well be repealed.

It is not completely ignored. When it is completely ignored or repealed, that is the time to rebel.

[A18]

There is not a single amendment in the Bill of Rights that the liberals want to follow, except the ones dealing with trials and law enforcement.

[John Dibble]

There is not a single amendment in the Bill of Rights that the liberals want to follow, except the ones dealing with trials and law enforcement.

They tend to like the first one. Though I will agree that both liberals and conservatives in general tend to pick and choose which ones they like.

[opebo]

How many times do I have to say this - we are NOT a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Big difference.

Yeah, that's what I was saying.  However the fact that there is drug testing in schools shows how few the restrictions on the majority are.

[Lunar]

There is not a single amendment in the Bill of Rights that the liberals want to follow, except the ones dealing with trials and law enforcement.

Aren't you the one that wants to repeal them all?

I consider myself a liberal and I like all 10.

[Lunar]

Here at my school, they test all clubs equally, and waste a LOT of money.  They also pull us out of class to test us and it's our own responsibility to make up the work.

Now that's not something I can imagine happening in a Democracy. Seriously.

It can happen when the majority of voters support curtailing personal rights and freedoms.  Democracy doesn't gaurantee anything - it just reflects the electorate, and we happen to have a bad one here. 

Obviously things would be much worse were it not for the undemocratic aspects of the Constitution - Bill of Rights, etc.

Obviously your definition of Democracy is different from mine - I would never call the Bill of Rights an undemocratic aspect of the Constitution.
Indeed, the problem here seems to be that the Bill of Rights is outdated and insufficient, otherwise this would be unconstitutional.

The entire Constitution is very authoritarian in nature, Opebo is right.

Notice how much more work it takes than 51% of the vote to change it?   Opebo is right.  Besides that, it limits what the people can do and sets the parameters for various officials to have power that isn't bestowed by the people (judges, Federal appointments, the House, and even the Senate is very un-democratic by giving Rhode Island as many votes as California).

[A18]

There is not a single amendment in the Bill of Rights that the liberals want to follow, except the ones dealing with trials and law enforcement.

Aren't you the one that wants to repeal them all?

I consider myself a liberal and I like all 10.

No, I want them all to be followed. But if we're not going to follow them, I want to repeal them.

[Redefeatbush04]

There is not a single amendment in the Bill of Rights that the liberals want to follow

Philip says that liberals think the bill of rights sucks

What does the entire Bill of Rights do? Kill off democracy, because it sucks.

Philip thinks the bill of rights sucks

Why? The Bill of Rights is good

philip thinks the bill of rights doesn't suck

The Bill of Rights itself limits democracy.

[John Dibble]

What does the entire Bill of Rights do? Kill off democracy, because it sucks.

Philip thinks the bill of rights sucks

Why? The Bill of Rights is good

philip thinks the bill of rights doesn't suck

The Bill of Rights itself limits democracy.

1. Phillip thinks democracy sucks, not the Bill of Rights.

2. Correct.

3. Democracy is a horrible system of government. In democracy, 51% can take the rights of 49% away. The Bill of Rights makes it very difficult for those rights to be taken away. Therefore democracy is limited by it.

[Redefeatbush04]

What does the entire Bill of Rights do? Kill off democracy, because it sucks.

Philip thinks the bill of rights sucks

Why? The Bill of Rights is good

philip thinks the bill of rights doesn't suck

The Bill of Rights itself limits democracy.

1. Phillip thinks democracy sucks, not the Bill of Rights.

2. Correct.

3. Democracy is a horrible system of government. In democracy, 51% can take the rights of 49% away. The Bill of Rights makes it very difficult for those rights to be taken away. Therefore democracy is limited by it.

In that case.....Phlip did you support the Florida recount?


BTW:

There is no greater threat to democracy than a recount of any kind.

[A18]

I support democracy as part of a republic. As in, I do believe people should vote for legislative officials, that their votes should be counted, and that the results of that count should stand.

Challenging the outcome of an election is a threat to democracy. It's one thing is there's evidence of fraud; another if you don't like the result, and just want to say "it was close." That's when we start considering things like "what was voter intent?" (they should have voted right) and "well, these ballots got thrown out because the voter didn't vote right" (and those ballots should have been thrown out).

Count once, count accurately, and if you don't like the outcome, count the days until the next election. But don't drag the electoral process through the mud.

[minionofmidas]

How many times do I have to say this - we are NOT a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Big difference.

No.
How many times do I have to say this...
Iraq was a constitutional republic but NOT a democracy.
The US is both, supposed to be at least.
Great Britain is a democracy but NOT a constitutional republic.
Saudi Arabia is neither.

"Republic" means the head of state is appointed or elected for a certain period of time, the position is not, or at least not officially, hereditary, and the official designation is not a traditional medieval one such as "King", "Count", "Emir" etc.
"constitutional" means there is a written constitution that is (more or less) being obeyed by the government.
"Democracy" is a more fuzzy concept. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" describes it quite well. So does what I wrote up there.

[John Dibble]

How many times do I have to say this - we are NOT a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Big difference.

No.
How many times do I have to say this...
Iraq was a constitutional republic but NOT a democracy.
The US is both, supposed to be at least.
Great Britain is a democracy but NOT a constitutional republic.
Saudi Arabia is neither.

"Republic" means the head of state is appointed or elected for a certain period of time, the position is not, or at least not officially, hereditary, and the official designation is not a traditional medieval one such as "King", "Count", "Emir" etc.
"constitutional" means there is a written constitution that is (more or less) being obeyed by the government.
"Democracy" is a more fuzzy concept. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" describes it quite well. So does what I wrote up there.

The federal system of U.S. government is a constitutional republic. The key feature of a republican government is representatives. We have those. The U.S. has democratic features, in that we elect those representatives, but it is not a democracy. A republic generally implies democratic elements, but it is not a democracy in of itself. The U.S. is more democratic now than before, but it is still not a democracy.

[minionofmidas]

How many times do I have to say this - we are NOT a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Big difference.

No.
How many times do I have to say this...
Iraq was a constitutional republic but NOT a democracy.
The US is both, supposed to be at least.
Great Britain is a democracy but NOT a constitutional republic.
Saudi Arabia is neither.

"Republic" means the head of state is appointed or elected for a certain period of time, the position is not, or at least not officially, hereditary, and the official designation is not a traditional medieval one such as "King", "Count", "Emir" etc.
"constitutional" means there is a written constitution that is (more or less) being obeyed by the government.
"Democracy" is a more fuzzy concept. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" describes it quite well. So does what I wrote up there.

The federal system of U.S. government is a constitutional republic. The key feature of a republican government is representatives. We have those. The U.S. has democratic features, in that we elect those representatives, but it is not a democracy. A republic generally implies democratic elements, but it is not a democracy in of itself. The U.S. is more democratic now than before, but it is still not a democracy.

No...the key feature of representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, is having representatives.
An "unelected Representative" is simply an oxymoron.
There are of course differences in how directly you elect representatives, which may make a country more or less democratic.
The US has obviously become a lot more Democratic through the abolution of slavery, womens' suffrage (just like every other Western country, on that count), and the restitution of Black voting rights in the 60's...it has also become less Democratic recently through the perfection of Gerrymandering.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on whether it's a Republic or no. The terms function on wholly different planes.

[John Dibble]

re·pub·lic    ( P ) (r-pblk)
n.

1. a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
    b. A nation that has such a political order.

2. a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
    b. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.


From the Federalist No. 10, James Madison: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union." & "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

[minionofmidas]

re·pub·lic    ( P ) (r-pblk)
n.

1. a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
    b. A nation that has such a political order.

2. a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
    b. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.


From the Federalist No. 10, James Madison: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union." & "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

Note the primary meaning.
Madison's definition of Democracy, though not clearly stated in the bit you quote, was obviously very much different from any current one. Sounds like he was thinking of something along the lines of Bakunist anarchy.

[John Dibble]

Pure democracy is where all power is vested in the citizens - the vote on every issue, and it is unrestrained majority rule. A constitutional democracy would have the same structure, but the constitution would limit what the people could do.

We are a republic, which is a more specified form of all types of democracy - as you said, democracy is a fuzzy concept. I much prefer the specific version. And yes, we are a constitutional republic.

[minionofmidas]

Pure democracy is where all power is vested in the citizens - the vote on every issue

Direct Democracy, then. More Rousseauan than Bakunist, and pretty strongly evident in the American tradition of letting the people vote on so-and-so many propositions

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, such a thing never existed, and never will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it is a democracy, then? Good. I was really frightened for your life and liberty there for a moment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although Republic is also a fuzzy concept, if you look at elected monarchs and presidents-for-life...Was 18th century Poland a Monarchy or a Republic? Or both?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, obviously nobody denied that.

[John Dibble]

A democracit government is bad the more it leans towards democracy, which is why I'm glad we are a constitutional republic - it's democratic enough to keep the government in check, but not too much so that the people can do whatever they please. The masses have power, and like all sources of power the masses should have limitations placed on the use of that power - majority rule is often contrary to individual liberty. Our government was designed with this in mind - all sources of power are corruptable and will lean towards tyranny, but if they keep eachother in check none of them will become too corrupt or tyrannous.

As I said before, the U.S. is more democratic now than before - the masses now vote on the President(actually the electoral cabinet) and Senators, where originally both were left to the state legislatures, which were elected by the people. While I'm not as sure on the president issue, I do think that it was a bad idea to let people elect Senators directly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I do think that it was a bad idea to let people elect Senators directly.

Elitist :-P

[John Dibble]

I do think that it was a bad idea to let people elect Senators directly.

Elitist :-P

What? Just because I think there should be limits on the masses? I think they should be able to directly elect members of the House, as was intended. They should be able to elect their state legislatures, and those legislatures should elect the Senators - how is that elitist? We elect representatives because they are supposedly the most knowledgeable and wise among us - because we want them to make complicated decisions that ordinary people would be unable to make. Some people are more able than others, in terms of strength, skill, intelligence, education, and various other factors - accepting this fact doesn't make me an elitist. The Senate is far more politicized than it was before - we don't need every single house of congress to bow to every fleeting whim of the people.

And is it elitist to want a form of government where power is structured to benefit the individual most of all?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I do think that it was a bad idea to let people elect Senators directly.

Elitist :-P

What? Just because I think there should be limits on the masses? I think they should be able to directly elect members of the House, as was intended. They should be able to elect their state legislatures, and those legislatures should elect the Senators - how is that elitist? We elect representatives because they are supposedly the most knowledgeable and wise among us - because we want them to make complicated decisions that ordinary people would be unable to make. Some people are more able than others, in terms of strength, skill, intelligence, education, and various other factors - accepting this fact doesn't make me an elitist. The Senate is far more politicized than it was before - we don't need every single house of congress to bow to every fleeting whim of the people.

And is it elitist to want a form of government where power is structured to benefit the individual most of all?

Thanks for confirming the Elitist tag

[John Dibble]

Fine, I'm an elitist then - some people are better than others in some areas.

Everyone has equal rights, but not ability. Does that mean those with ability should be given pure control - no, otherwise they will likely violate the equal rights of those with lesser ability. But if everyone has an equal say, the government becomes mediocre, and often tyrannous. Our system is designed to put those with ability in power, but keep them checked so as not to violate individual rights. All great sources of power must be checked if the individual is to be protected, and that includes the masses. In a perfect world, everyone would have great ability and a great respect other individuals - but this isn't a perfect world, is it?

An effective government needs effective, able leadership - surely you want the leadership to have ability, no? Or do you think just anyone should be able to run things? If it is elitist to realize that the masses shouldn't run everything, then I'll take it as a compliment to be called an elitist.

[Hitchabrut]

Yes. Why be worried if there's nothing to hide? Same about the Patriot Act.

[opebo]

Yes. Why be worried if there's nothing to hide? Same about the Patriot Act.

Taking drugs should be everyone's individual right.