Democrats - Meaning = Lazy people who live of tax payer Money

People who have no problem with illegals coming over here to kill kids, they even aid illegals.

people who want to control the people they are supposed to serve.

people who want to strip our constitutional rights.

There's is nothing Illegal about their Methods.

History seems to show that civilizations tend to last just over 200 years. Historians have shown that there are 8 phases/stages.

1. From bondage to spiritual growth
2. From spiritual growth to great courage
3. From courage to liberty
4. From liberty to abundance
5. From abundance to complacency
6. From complacency to apathy
7. From apathy to dependence
8. From dependence back to bondage

Looks to me like we are in state 7, which does not bode well for the USA if true.

If that was for local civilizations, what about now with a global civilization?

No. The leftist agenda is a suicide pact.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
History seems to show that civilizations tend to last just over 200 years. Historians have shown that there are 8 phases/stages.

1. From bondage to spiritual growth
2. From spiritual growth to great courage
3. From courage to liberty
4. From liberty to abundance
5. From abundance to complacency
6. From complacency to apathy
7. From apathy to dependence
8. From dependence back to bondage

Looks to me like we are in state 7, which does not bode well for the USA if true.

That is called the Tytler Cycle.

http://commonsensegovernment.c...ler-cycle-revisited/

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:
Hang on, now, I'm not talking about mob rule. I know the distinctions between democracy and republic and constitutional and unconstitutional. What I'm asking is that if the proper channels are followed to enact laws contrary to the Constitution and the American way of life, or if the appropriate channels are followed to change the Constitution to then allow previously unconstitutional laws, do these un-American laws suddenly have the right to exist because the appropriate channels were used to create them?

Are you asking (and by asking, encouraging) if we conservatives would reject and defy amendments to the Constitution which we view as "Un-American"? How can the legally amended constitution be "Un-American"? The constitution has been amended in the past (13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 24th) to outlaw practices that were previously legal. Did some American citizens object to these amendments? Sure they did. Have citizens engaged in armed rebellion to the constitution? Many times. I grew up in Mississippi during the Ole Miss riots. I lived in Pensacola during the abortion doctor murders. This is what can happen when the course of action you seem to advocate is carried out.

In the case of the 18th, there was open rejection and defying of the amendment. When the social mores of Americans changed, the 18th was canceled by the 21st. That is the way it should work.

quote:

Is the leftist agenda acceptable if it implemented democratically?

Nonsense potentially becoming popular is one of the key reasons the Founders considered a democracy unworkable.

Thank goodness we have a Constitution that set us up as a republic.

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:
When is communism ever acceptable?

When they are in your sights.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Is the leftist agenda acceptable if it implemented democratically?

Nonsense potentially becoming popular is one of the key reasons the Founders considered a democracy unworkable.
Thank goodness we have a Constitution that set us up as a republic.

It's an important distinction, one that is usually brushed over, or offered passing acknowledgement.

If the purpose of the Constitution, and therefore the purpose of government, is to protect our individual liberty:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ...

Then there have to be limits on what the government can do, whether by a majority or not.

If theft is wrong, does a majority vote of Congress make it right?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Of course. But that takes super-majorities and ratification, etc.

2/3 of both Houses of Congress just to put an amendment on the table, and then it goes to the states, where 38 state legislatures have to ratify it before it is finally passed. That is not a low hurdle to overcome.

quote:

Originally posted by henryaz:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Of course. But that takes super-majorities and ratification, etc.

2/3 of both Houses of Congress just to put an amendment on the table, and then it goes to the states, where 38 state legislatures have to ratify it before it is finally passed. That is not a low hurdle to overcome.

Thankfully.

The 13th, 14th and 15th were ratified when the states of the former Confederacy were under Military Reconstruction.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:

quote:

Originally posted by henryaz:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Of course. But that takes super-majorities and ratification, etc.

2/3 of both Houses of Congress just to put an amendment on the table, and then it goes to the states, where 38 state legislatures have to ratify it before it is finally passed. That is not a low hurdle to overcome.

Thankfully.

Which is why Leftists use the judiciary to impose the agenda and Progressivism to pervert the culture.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:
Hang on, now, I'm not talking about mob rule. I know the distinctions between democracy and republic and constitutional and unconstitutional. What I'm asking is that if the proper channels are followed to enact laws contrary to the Constitution and the American way of life, or if the appropriate channels are followed to change the Constitution to then allow previously unconstitutional laws, do these un-American laws suddenly have the right to exist because the appropriate channels were used to create them?

Are you asking (and by asking, encouraging) if we conservatives would reject and defy amendments to the Constitution which we view as "Un-American"? How can the legally amended constitution be "Un-American"? The constitution has been amended in the past (13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 24th) to outlaw practices that were previously legal. Did some American citizens object to these amendments? Sure they did. Have citizens engaged in armed rebellion to the constitution? Many times. I grew up in Mississippi during the Ole Miss riots. I lived in Pensacola during the abortion doctor murders. This is what can happen when the course of action you seem to advocate is carried out.

In the case of the 18th, there was open rejection and defying of the amendment. When the social mores of Americans changed, the 18th was canceled by the 21st. That is the way it should work.

What is the course of action I'm advocating?

I'm simply asking if the Constitution is changed through legal means, does that make the new law valid regardless of its content? Which do we hold most dear, the process, or the outcome?

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:
Hang on, now, I'm not talking about mob rule. I know the distinctions between democracy and republic and constitutional and unconstitutional. What I'm asking is that if the proper channels are followed to enact laws contrary to the Constitution and the American way of life, or if the appropriate channels are followed to change the Constitution to then allow previously unconstitutional laws, do these un-American laws suddenly have the right to exist because the appropriate channels were used to create them?

Are you asking (and by asking, encouraging) if we conservatives would reject and defy amendments to the Constitution which we view as "Un-American"? How can the legally amended constitution be "Un-American"? The constitution has been amended in the past (13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 24th) to outlaw practices that were previously legal. Did some American citizens object to these amendments? Sure they did. Have citizens engaged in armed rebellion to the constitution? Many times. I grew up in Mississippi during the Ole Miss riots. I lived in Pensacola during the abortion doctor murders. This is what can happen when the course of action you seem to advocate is carried out.

In the case of the 18th, there was open rejection and defying of the amendment. When the social mores of Americans changed, the 18th was canceled by the 21st. That is the way it should work.

What is the course of action I'm advocating?

I'm simply asking if the Constitution is changed through legal means, does that make the new law valid regardless of its content? Which do we hold most dear, the process, or the outcome?

Principles

quote:

I'm simply asking if the Constitution is changed through legal means, does that make the new law valid regardless of its content? Which do we hold most dear, the process, or the outcome?

Your question leads back to the fundamental question:
What is the purpose of government?

If, as the Founders believed, the purpose of the Constitution, and therefore the purpose of government, is to protect our individual liberty:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ...

Then the process must serve the purpose, or you change the process.

The constitution was formed in response to tyranny. if tyranny becomes "legal," I will resist by any means necessary. King George followed all the legal procedures.

Monk, thank you for this thread. You ask a question that is important to us in these changing times.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
Monk, thank you for this thread. You ask a question that is important to us in these changing times.

You are very welcome.

I believe the time is coming when the left will be able to effect the changes they desire through lawful means. They continue to appeal to young, uninformed voters. They continually seek to import new voters in the form of illegal immigrants. They purchase votes with welfare and government money. Even the race between Cruz and Beto in Texas was much, much closer than it should have been. And then where will we be?

If a proposal is unconstitutional, it cannot be made constitutional by a popular vote, or passage in the legislature. But, many things that we would not like as laws are not unconstitutional, and can be enacted as laws.

And I have said this before. Yes, we are a republic, but what that word means is that power and authority is held by the people and elected representatives and not by a monarch. This isn't the feature most people mean when they say "this is a republic."

What they mean is that this is a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy. We elect representatives to make most decisions for us. The representatives' authority is further constrained by a constitution. So, what protects us is that we are a constitutional representative democracy, not the fact that we are republic.

Britain is now a republic, as the monarch has no power. But they do not have a constitution in the way we do. So GB is a representative democracy - without a constitution.

The sanctity of every individual over the wishes of any group is the bedrock principle of western civilization. I don't think that every leftist agenda item violates this idea, but some certainly do. Implementing those items would undermine the foundation of our country. Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.