America is no longer a constitutional Republic. It is now a democracy. SHAME!!

[fallenturtle]

A constitutional republic, upon which America was founded, is based on the supremacy of the constitution. It is a country based on the rule of laws, not of men. Such a country protects the rights of the minority against the tyranny of an elected majority. America was always unique among nations in this respect.

No more. The actions of the Obama administration, culminating in this week's decision by the Supreme Court, has turned America on its head, making the nation a "democracy", a country where the will of a majority elected government can "rule", make administrative decisions at its whim, irregardless of its impact on the people. American citizens have effectively had their rights eroded. In other words, we have become a country based on the rule of "men" not "laws". As examples: Obama's amnesty fiat a week ago, the overturning of the "Arizona law" earlier in the week and the biggest of them all, "Obamacare". Roberts, a Bush appointee, drove the final spike into the heart of the constitution. Progressivism obviously knows no party boundaries.

We Americans are in uncharted territory. Obama's vision has succeeded in large part to take the country from a Constitutional Republic to a "Democracy" - a tyranny of one man/party rule if they can fool the people into voting for them.

How do we recalim America? Will the "Republic" become some sort of quaint memory (which rich liberal elites would have us believe)? I fear Romney is not up to the task. What do we do. Frankly, I am one Hannity forum member who is utterly lost and despondent. Any ideas on how to retake our country?

We are still and always have been BOTH a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. We have not been and are still not a direct democracy, which is the "democracy" to which the founders objected.

We are a representative democracy because we vote for people to represent us.

We are a constitutional republic because we have a constitution that protects minority rights from majority rule.

[Lisa4Catholics]

We are still and always have been BOTH a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. We have not been and are still not a direct democracy, which is the "democracy" to which the founders objected.

We are a representative democracy because we vote for people to represent us.

We are a constitutional republic because we have a constitution that protects minority rights from majority rule.

Not in this case that was stolen, we are the USS OF A now.

[Rurudyne]

We are still and always have been BOTH a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. We have not been and are still not a direct democracy, which is the "democracy" to which the founders objected.

We are a representative democracy because we vote for people to represent us.

We are a constitutional republic because we have a constitution that protects minority rights from majority rule.

But elections and party platforms that may go with them are NOT the proper basis for alterations in the actual powers of government.

They can only lawfully represent us relative to powers the federal government actually has.

If they do more that that, and boy have they, then we cease to be a constitutional republic as the government has become both a self-establishing and self-expending entity rather than the creation of the Law, the Constitution.

[Lisa4Catholics]

But elections and party platforms that may go with them are NOT the proper basis for alterations in the actual powers of government.

They can only lawfully represent us relative to powers the federal government actually has.

If they do more that that, and boy have they, then we cease to be a constitutional republic as the government has become both a self-establishing and self-expending entity rather than the creation of the Law, the Constitution.

AMEN!!!!

[fallenturtle]

Not in this case that was stolen, we are the USS OF A now.

The United States Ship of America?

[fallenturtle]

But elections and party platforms that may go with them are NOT the proper basis for alterations in the actual powers of government.

They can only lawfully represent us relative to powers the federal government actually has.

If they do more that that, and boy have they, then we cease to be a constitutional republic as the government has become both a self-establishing and self-expending entity rather than the creation of the Law, the Constitution.

Glass half empty vs full, I suppose... the SC has plenty of times ruled that something is unconstitutional. Its kind of silly to proclaim that we are no longer protected by a constitution simply because the SC ruled that something you feel is unconstitutional IS constitutional.

Reality is what is... and what is or isn't Constitutional is decided by the SC, not you.

[NascarGirl2448]

sorry to break it to you but he asked you if your indian doctor was here, trained here, use the equipment here. You ignored the questions and changed the subject something you like to do when you know you are wrong.

Now back to your point. Please show us where anybody and I mean anybody said they did not go there. Then show us that system is better because people go there. Many people go to Mexico for care also do you thike they have a better health care? I can show you where many people come to this country for medical care. Using your logic that makes us better.

Still mad I proved you wrong? Get over it. You claimed people weren't going to other countries for medical care, I proved you wrong. Live with that.

[NascarGirl2448]

Oh I see how it's done when a claim is debated we quickly deflect to another topic. LOL kinda like the DWS thread. So again do you have answers to my questions as the relate to your original statement.

As to the recent deflection, do you have any stats that would compare the number of US citizens going abroad for health care VS those coming to the US for healthcare. You do realize that you can buy a "genuine Rolex" from the guy on the street for less than you pay at a jewelry store, however you may get what you pay for

I guess you didn't bother to read the link I posted in this very thread that proves you wrong. Oh well, so typical of the right wing when it gets shot down.

[Rurudyne]

Glass half empty vs full, I suppose... the SC has plenty of times ruled that something is unconstitutional. Its kind of silly to proclaim that we are no longer protected by a constitution simply because the SC ruled that something you feel is unconstitutional IS constitutional.

Reality is what is... and what is or isn't Constitutional is decided by the SC, not you.

Can you point to any part of Article 3 where the Court has the power to accept a statute contrary to what those with the original right, who ratified the Constitution, agreed to?

It IS NOT there.

If you were familiar with Marbury you would know that "judicial review" is reasonable at all because of fidelity to their oaths of office — that they swear to uphold the Constitution. Marbury also comes with the features of the only proper methodology for judicial review — to honor both the particular theory of written constitutions on which the Constitution was constructed as well as the original right of those that made it Law and it is THESE that are part and parcel of its permanence.

The SC is in abeyance — it has just violated both principals and in spades.

I can "decide" that because it is flatly obvious to anyone who isn't in love with the **** for governance that FDR bestowed on us and which Mr.No Repeal Eisenhower set his worthless hands to as well.

Disobedience is called for.

[Clintville]

isn't Europe the third world? why would we want to go backwards? is this the progressive "forward" they speak of?

Europe is not the third world. Under both definitions for the most part.