Slashdot Mirror

You would be right, If we lived in a democracy. Which we dont. We live in a Democratic Republic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Come on even the Washington Post knows this. And they are literally the worst site to get information from. They do however back track a year later to align with their agenda. but heres some others.

http://www.realdemocracy.com/d...

http://www.thisnation.com/ques...

I hope this is enough to inform you.

http://www.thisnation.com/ques...

See I can do that too.

Policitians are the least likely to know what is right: the only thing they care about is what keeps them in power.

Actually, I think it may be even worse than that. With 540 elected officials in the Federal government alone (one president, one vice-president, one hundred elected senators, and 338 congressmen and women), I would wager that someone has the right answer to every problem our nation faces. It's just that most of them are more interested in being popular than in being right.

Wrong again.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
http://www.suite101.com/content/is-the-united-states-a-democracy-a175274

While James Madison did coin the term Representative Democracy, nothing in the Constitution define the United States as anything but a republic.

"and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands..." isn't purely by accident. Nor is the appearance of "every State in this Union a Republican form of Government" in article IV of the Constitution.

Oh, and here are some links so you can familiarize yourself with the difference between a democracy and a republic. As you can see from the articles, the difference is far greater than just a different pronunciation of the same word.

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy.

What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government.

Google is your friend, my friend.

No, it's the democratic governments that are controlled by the people, so therefore, any controlling done by the government is controlling by the people (by proxy).

America is *not* a democracy, however. It is a republic.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

So in essence, controlling of the populace is done by the government in what they view as the "best interest" of the people and not necessarily at the direct and express request of the people. Big effing difference, at least in my paranoid liberal opinion.

Sorry if I've passed on wrong information, but I'm American, did pay attention in Government class in high school, and do remember executive orders like that. I made a quick check on the internet (http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html) and confirmed what I'd remembered. Now, your weird question: "Does a regulation written by an executive agency carry the same weight as a law passed by congress?" I don't know what a regulation is, but I certainly hope not. I'm not sure why you think my opinion matters -- I'm a computer programmer for fuck's sake. And your even weirder question: "How about George W. Bush's signing statements?" Uhh, how about those, indeed? If it's true, (and it certainly sounds believable these days) I do not think they would change the laws as they are passed by congress.

President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.

Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.

it's sad but true, the Bush administration is alienating canada like no other administration in US history..

I beg to differ: James Madison's administration was even more hostile.

Never mind, I found a link

"Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders." http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

This has been going on forever.

How true, but this applies to everyone equally.

For every petty dictator we supported in the Cold War, there was a petty dictator supported by the Soviet Union as well. I noticed that East Germany was absent from your listing. There are many more in that listing as well, I assure you.

And what about colonies? Every major power in Europe was just itching to get into Africa in a big way. Do you think they brought the natives foreign aid?

How do you rate the French involvement in Algeria or the Ivory Coast?

To contantly jump on the US for having made poor decisions as a nation undermines the great sacrifice that American citizens have made in keeping major conflict from arriving at everyone's doors world-wide. You and I can criticize the decisions as ill-informed or malevolent, but please don't forget that the US doesn't make them without perceived threats from abroad.

There are still Americans who believe in John Adams proclaimation that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

Living up to that proclaimation has been difficult and has meant the sacrifice of a nations treasure.

Well, we can start with the 4th Amendment. The right to be secure in one's person houses, papers , and effects seems to uphold a consitutional right to privacy, when coupled with the 14th Amendment you have a pretty strong listing of rights (also remember, a right cannot be taken away from you with a law, laws regulate privilages - very important distinction.)

Also, you may want to examine Griswold v. Connecticut where the supreme court first upheld the right to privacy. Hope that helps you get a better grasp on a fundamental human right.

[Taken from here. Emphasis mine... --LP]

President Reagan's Speech on The Challenger Disaster
Oval Office of the White House
January 28, 1986

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd planned to speak to you tonight to report on the state of the Union, but the events of earlier today have led me to change those plans. Today is a day for mourning and remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this pain with all of the people of our country. This is truly a national loss.

Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. But, we've never lost an astronaut in flight; we've never had a tragedy like this. And perhaps we've forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle; but they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. We mourn their loss as a nation together.

For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy. But we feel the loss, and we're thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, 'Give me a challenge and I'll meet it with joy.' They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve, and they did. They served all of us.

We've grown used to wonders in this century. It's hard to dazzle us. But for twenty-five years the United States space program has been doing just that. We've grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just begun. We're still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.

And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them...

I've always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute. We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue. I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works for NASA or who worked on this mission and tell them: "Your dedication and professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades. And we know of your anguish. We share it."

There's a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said, 'He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it.' Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake's, complete.

The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honoured us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God.'

Perhaps you should first read the Declaration of Independence
Then ask yourself which side Canada was on in the war of independence, and why.

The presidential election of 1824 is notable not only because the outcome was decided by the House of Representatives but also because the candidate who won the popular vote--Andrew Jackson--had failed to win a majority of electoral votes. The House ultimately selected his opponent, John Quincy Adams, to be the President. The results enraged Jackson's supporters and he was elected President by a wide margin four years later. In two other instances, once in 1876 and again in 1888, the candidate who lost the popular vote won a majority of electoral votes and was elected President.