Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "Debunking MAGA claim: \"We are a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy\"" video.

  1. ​​ @Nine1215 sorry, but the UK constitution exists, but not in one document. Have a look at Britmonkey's 4-part series on the UK constitution. It is the most accessible introduction to it, and how it works in practice. And you're mixing terms too. Yes we have a constitutional monarch as the head of State, because their role and powers are outlined in documents that make up the constitution. However, the have no political role in the Executive, deliberative, legislative, or judicial arms of government. The leader of the party with the majority of seats in the House of Commons is the Head of the Executive Branch of Government. Only if all members of the legislative and executive branches of government are wiped out completely such as in a nuclear explosion, can the monarch as Head of State, take on executive powers during such time of emergency. But Britmonkey's series covers all the bases.
    2
  2. It the argument of a wrecking ball mindset. What they are trying to wreck is the combination of a constitutional Republic of the United States of America, which uses representational democracy to elect the representatives the People employ to exercise their political power on their behalf. The wrecking balls don't really understand constitutional republics need some way to express who has the political power within them. They are silent on the matter, because then they would have to justify removing representational democracy from the people and replacing it with no choice of who exercises power within their constitutional republic. What's worse is the people pushing this political framing agenda, are pushing it are those who imagine themselves to be better than YOU The People in choosing who should wield political power in the constitutional Republic of the USA. Indeed, there is a fondness of the types of republic in history under which Machiavelli's The Prince is set. Instead of princes, we have the wonderfully anodyne but deceptive term of Sovereign Individuals, ruling over designated territories, who are elected at best elected but only by an Oligarchy. Or, even more distinctly, not elected at all. The people have no voice, as they become not citizens, but subjects, powerless, and subjected to the power of an elite, with no influence power. Just look around you in the world and you will find that authoritarian states as described, are as Machiavelli himself predicted, poorer and less efficient than democracies. So why should Americans put democracy aside? They shouldn't. They should reform it to give The People even more power. Instead of just two parties, have proportional representation, teach civics in every school, so children learn about their constitution and the pros and cons of democracy. And create citizen assemblies, where at a state and local level, citizens can sit for 6 weeks in local councils debating and learning how their districts are run. The more people know they've got skin in the game, the more seriously they can engage with or in politics. And you might even making voting compulsory too. Anything to embed engagement with the democratic process. Why? Because the alternatives are worse. Demonstrably so, by history. Fascism is colonialism for developed countries, and by denying democracy, they imagine they want to be colonised. How foolish can one be?
    1