Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Democrat Stuns Host, Admits Plan to Ignore & Crush Voters’ Right" video.

However, the Democratic process is enshrined in the Constitution. That makes the US a democracy within the bounds of the Constitution. Every citizen has the right to vote except within certain specifications, such as age limitations and or if one is a felon. The United States is a democracy but a Constitutional Republic first. To give an example. We're human but we're also bi-pedal except under certain conditions. We're both just like were a Constitutional Republic which gives us democratic rights. Lose the right to vote and our Constitution, the document that enshrines our rights, isn't worth the paper it's written on. We also have the right to free speech. Take away that right and we're no longer a Constitutional Republic.
11
@saltynameredacted9117 The right to vote is, however. It's in Article 2 of the Constitution and the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendment more clearly protects the right to vote to all citizens. What do you call a country that votes for their representatives? A Democracy. We also have the right to free speech. However, as far as I know, there isn't a word that describes a country that allows free speech. America is a free speech country. However, there is a word for a country that allows the vote. We call it a democracy. We don't call it a country that votes. it's a Democracy. Democracy is just a name that describes a country that votes for it's representatives. The minute you claim that America isn't a Democracy, you've opened the door to lose your right to vote and also means we have no process, other than allowing individuals to force their way into leadership. What's ironic is that it's the Democrat Party that has suppressed the right to vote throughout American history, in spite of their claims to the contrary.
6
@davidaughinbaugh8643 The Constitution outlines how the vote must be carried out. It tells us that the people cannot vote for or pass a law that violates our rights as outlined in the Constitution. That is the limitation on mob rule. The Supreme Court's job is to make sure that these anti-Constitutional laws can't become permanent laws. Mob rule applies to countries that have no Constitutional guidelines to limit the power of the mob. Just as there are guidelines to limit the power of the government. Our Constitution was put in place to enshrine the power and rights of the people. If we can't even elect our representatives, we have no rights or power. The reps will appointed and, as history has shown, the reps will eventually just appoint themselves. That's how we reach tyranny.
4
Yes, we do. Voting rights are enshrined in the Constitution. That means we're a democracy and it's protected by the Constitution. A Constitutional Republic that guarantees our right to free speech, a free press, to protect ourselves AND to vote. When you have the right to vote, you live in a Democracy. A Democracy under the umbrella of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is also why non-citizens can't vote in American elections. It's a democratic right that's reserved for American citizens. It's like being a Texan AND and an American. You can be both.
1
And our Democratic right to vote is enshrined within our Constitution. Without the right to vote, we become a dictatorship and that means we're no longer a Constitutional Republic. We're a Democracy under the umbrella of the Constitution. We're both and we can't have one without the other.
1
@Jimraynor45 "Just because you vote for your lighthouse keeper doesn't suddenly mean he has the power to control your life or operate out his bounds." That's correct. He doesn't have the power to control my life or operate out of his bounds. That's what the Constitution is for. To limit the power of our elected officials so the don't exceed the limits of power and take away our rights. That's why I say that we're a Democracy within the bounds of what the Constitution allows. The Constitution rules over the election or democratic process NOT the other way around. Our entire system has systems of checks and balances with different branches of government being able to limit the powers of the other. That would also include the tyranny of mob rule. An elected official cannot legislate a law the takes away the rights of its citizens no matter how badly those citizens want him to. Our Constitutional Republic tries to prevent that from happening through the guidelines of the Constitution. It's a check against corrupt politicians and illegal mandates of its citizens. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. The Constitution sets the parameters of the election or Democratic process. The American Democracy is subservient to the American Constitution. The United States is a Constitutional Republic first, overseeing the Democracy so it doesn't end up being corrupted. That's how it's ideally set up to operate.
1
@Frankie5Angels150 Democracy definition: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." The Online Dictionary. " typically through elected representatives" Representatives NOT everything. I suppose the Dictionary is gibberish, as well. It's quite explicit in saying that a Democracy is commonly manifested through elected officials. The people elect representatives who enact the law. Republic definition: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch." Online Dictionary The representatives are elected (do you see it?) by the people and the leader of the government is either appointed by the representatives or elected by the people. The online dictionary says that when representatives are elected by the people, we call it a Democracy. Representatives are elected by the people in the United States. That means that it's Republic and a Democracy. Since the Constitution sets how elections are run, the US is a Constitutional Republic AND a Democracy. Your ad hominem attacks don't change the facts. If you want to show that you may be correct, then back it up with references. Show me where my logic is flawed. Don't insinuate that I'm not smart enough to be talking and don't gaslight me by saying that other's are ignoring my gibberish. That's the true fallacy here.
1
@umpire29 It defines "loan" as something being borrowed, usually money but it can be anything. However, loaning power doesn't take away from the democratic process of electing our reps, who borrow the power of the people. It's still a democracy. The United States is a Constitutional Republic in which the people exercise their power through the vote, also known as the democratic process, a process clearly defined in the Constitution. The people don't have power if they're not able to vote for representatives to act on behalf of the electorate. That means, it's no longer a Republic. Take away the Democratic process and you lose your Republic.
1
@umpire29 I gave you the definition of the word "loan". However, I don't see how that takes away form the fact that we employ the Democratic process. You can, although it's about as cumbersome as it gets, have a direct Democracy in which EVERY issue is voted on by the people, but it's not the ONLY form of a Democracy. I gave you the Dictionary definition of a Democracy and a Republic. That's NOT my belief. Those are the facts. The definitions say that a Republic is governed by the people who commonly elect representatives to govern, by proxy so to speak. Nowhere did it say that a democracy is exclusively governed directly by the people. It explicitly says that it's through the election of representatives by the people. You don't have to believe it but it's like saying that water isn't wet when all the evidence says that it is. To make it true, you have to change the definition of words which is what you're attempting to do. Go back to the definitions, from the dictionary, that I gave and read them carefully. It's very clear and the fact that you're insisting that democracy is only direct rule from the people shows that you're either not understanding what it says or you're changing what it says to suit what you want it to say. I can't help that. You either accept the definition, as we all understand it or you make up your own definition. Once you do that, there is no such thing as objective truth. It's all about how YOU see it.
1