I think you're pretty close. The key issue is this: does the Queen have to follow the law? If so, it's a republic. If not (and the Queen or King can simply make new laws, or invalidate old ones by a simple decree, or simply ignore them), then you don't have a republic.
The Democrats controlled the House and Senate for a couple of decades -- right up until Newt kicked them out. The Democrats treated the Republicans much worse when they were in control than they're being treated right now...
Stop whining. You (democrats) had your chance and you didn't do much with it...
I didn't write the post you're referring to, I thought I'd contribute an explanation (albeit a simplistic one).
A Republic is governed by a small group of people that were selected to run the government according to their best judgement. How this group is selected (through elections, appointments or inheritance) is not relevant.
A Constitutional Republic is the same as a normal Republic, except that it has a firm Constitution that sets limits, boundaries and guidelines for those governing. If the "best judgement" of the governing individuals conflicts with the Constition, the Constitution wins -- it is that simple.
What the founding father's did was set up a mediocre government
You're sadly misinformed. The Founding Fathers set up an excellent government that deliberately created a strong union of states with weak Federal oversight. It was (and still is) a brilliant form of government.
Unfortunately it didn't last very long, as the states weakened and the Feds took away power from everyone, because they wanted it for themselves. Lincoln pretty much finished off what Washington and Jefferson & friends gave us.
There's quite a difference between blatant disregard for the law & Constitution, and mis-interpreting it. When the courts are finding against Bush, what they're saying is more along the lines of "Your interpretation was incorrect", rather than "You've disregarded and broken the law".
If were otherwise (as you seem to believe), we'd be neck-high in impeachment hearings and be deafened by the wails of democrats. As it stands, there are no hearings, and we just have democrats whining -- not that Bush broke the law, but rather because they, the democrats, want to be the ones in the White House. The whole "trampling the constitution" thing is just grist for the re-election mill...
Rant and rave for a while, and when you come back to reality, you'll realize that Bush is promoting the change so that he can do his job more effectively in the future. Passing a law now will not protect anyone who broke a previous law -- it just doesn't work that way.
While you try to paint Bush and his administration as a group of thugs that simply disregard the constitution whenever it suits their needs, you're quite mistaken. Knowing Bush's character and his record, he hasn't done anything that his advisers and lawyers would deem "unconstitutional". If Bush has a question about the legality of something, he's always asked Gonzales and his legal team to find an appropriate, legal way of accomplishing his goals.
While you may not agree with what he is doing (just as I don't agree with everything he's done since taking office), Bush is following the law. In the future we may find that his legal team's interpretations of the law were wrong (which is quite possible), and if that happens then he'll have to pay the price. But for now, you're just spouting off about policies that you don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're pretty close. The key issue is this: does the Queen have to follow the law? If so, it's a republic. If not (and the Queen or King can simply make new laws, or invalidate old ones by a simple decree, or simply ignore them), then you don't have a republic.
The Democrats controlled the House and Senate for a couple of decades -- right up until Newt kicked them out. The Democrats treated the Republicans much worse when they were in control than they're being treated right now...
Stop whining. You (democrats) had your chance and you didn't do much with it...
I didn't write the post you're referring to, I thought I'd contribute an explanation (albeit a simplistic one).
A Republic is governed by a small group of people that were selected to run the government according to their best judgement. How this group is selected (through elections, appointments or inheritance) is not relevant.
A Constitutional Republic is the same as a normal Republic, except that it has a firm Constitution that sets limits, boundaries and guidelines for those governing. If the "best judgement" of the governing individuals conflicts with the Constition, the Constitution wins -- it is that simple.
What the founding father's did was set up a mediocre government
You're sadly misinformed. The Founding Fathers set up an excellent government that deliberately created a strong union of states with weak Federal oversight. It was (and still is) a brilliant form of government.
Unfortunately it didn't last very long, as the states weakened and the Feds took away power from everyone, because they wanted it for themselves. Lincoln pretty much finished off what Washington and Jefferson & friends gave us.
There's quite a difference between blatant disregard for the law & Constitution, and mis-interpreting it. When the courts are finding against Bush, what they're saying is more along the lines of "Your interpretation was incorrect", rather than "You've disregarded and broken the law".
If were otherwise (as you seem to believe), we'd be neck-high in impeachment hearings and be deafened by the wails of democrats. As it stands, there are no hearings, and we just have democrats whining -- not that Bush broke the law, but rather because they, the democrats, want to be the ones in the White House. The whole "trampling the constitution" thing is just grist for the re-election mill...
Rant and rave for a while, and when you come back to reality, you'll realize that Bush is promoting the change so that he can do his job more effectively in the future. Passing a law now will not protect anyone who broke a previous law -- it just doesn't work that way.
While you try to paint Bush and his administration as a group of thugs that simply disregard the constitution whenever it suits their needs, you're quite mistaken. Knowing Bush's character and his record, he hasn't done anything that his advisers and lawyers would deem "unconstitutional". If Bush has a question about the legality of something, he's always asked Gonzales and his legal team to find an appropriate, legal way of accomplishing his goals.
While you may not agree with what he is doing (just as I don't agree with everything he's done since taking office), Bush is following the law. In the future we may find that his legal team's interpretations of the law were wrong (which is quite possible), and if that happens then he'll have to pay the price. But for now, you're just spouting off about policies that you don't like.