Do you think many on the right even understand what the Founding Fathers did?

T. A. Gardner said:
Well, we know those on the Left certainly don't have a clue about the ideas that founded the United States, only vaguely understand the country's history, and want to "fundamentally transform" it into some completely different than what the founders envisioned...
Click to expand...

Many and probably most of the historians in the U.S. are "among those on the Left", as well as educated people generally, and an insight into the relative ignorance of those on the Right might be gleaned in a small way from a review of this web site, supposedly a place for political discourse where a typical rejoinder from one among those on the Right would be something along lines of, "Fuck you".

Your own argument that the Department of Education is Unconstitutional is fairly clueless, since it is not the mere shell of the department that could offend the Constitution but certain of its conduct. A claim, for example, that it is Unconstitutional for the department to dictate curriculum to public schools might have weight.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Constitution as originally set up divided power among three branches of government, using a combination of Democracy, representative Democracy, and appointment among them. It was not intended that all public offices at the federal level be filled by direct popular vote.

The reason that was done was to separate power and ensure no branch, office, or person could dominate government.

The House was elected by direct democratic vote of those living in the representative's district. The Senate was to be elected or appointed by state governments to represent them. The method of selection of senators was left up to the states. The adoption of the 17th Amendment fucked that away and has been eroding the separation of the Senate from the House ever since. The Senate is becoming another House for all intents, eliminating it as a separate deliberative body and stripping states of their representation.

The presidency was to be by representative democracy where voters selected members of the Electoral College who would then vote on a president. The intent here was to keep the large and most populous states from steamrollering over smaller, less populous states and concentrating power in the hands of a few.

The Supreme Court was appointed. Lifetime positions meant that justices were no longer beholden to anyone in their decisions. They could rule on the basis of law and precedent without political pressure. Of course, the Left wants to pack the court to get the outcomes they want and has tried this several times in US history without success thankfully.

The Left calls for mob rule demanding we appoint all our leaders on the basis of a popular vote and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Partially incorrect. Direct democracy is where citizens make basic decisions on government themselves. It still exists in the United States in the relatively few Town Hall meetings that remain where residents or property owners agree on a budget and decide certain policy matters. Everything else is representative democracy which included elections of state legislatures that in turn chose members of the Senate - representative democracy in that the legislators were elected to perform that function on behalf of the citizens.
 
martin said:
Really? Why wouldn't it stimulate thought as to why not, except of course in an incurious mind?
Click to expand...

A "thought terminating cliché is a variant of the ad hominem or insult as a logical fallacy. It is intended to shut down the conversation by adding an irrelevant phrase or term that dismisses the current argument as over or irrelevant. It is using a form of cognitive dissidence.

Examples:

Whatever, you're still wrong.
Stop over thinking it
Here we go again...
Oh, Fox news...
So what?

There are many others.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
A "thought terminating cliché is a variant of the ad hominem or insult as a logical fallacy. It is intended to shut down the conversation by adding an irrelevant phrase or term that dismisses the current argument as over or irrelevant. It is using a form of cognitive dissidence.

Examples:

Whatever, you're still wrong.
Stop over thinking it
Here we go again...
Oh, Fox news...
So what?

There are many others.
Click to expand...

Didn't ask what it meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top