News Can democracy coexist with theocracy?

russ_watters

Mentor
18,405
4,653
Loren Booda said:
Russ,

No. Just to say that the Senate (and thus the electoral college) is not a democratically decided institution when considered on a national scale. State boundaries are relatively arbitrary, even gerrymandered, when compared to the parity between House districts.
I am of the opinion that its important to remember the political context which led to this. I'm a Northerner, but to a lot of Southerners, national identity is secondary to state identity.
 
3,074
3
(I'm a Virginian, but just barely.) If the South couldn't exist as an independent Confederacy, at least they can seize power with state's rights. Indeed, the majority of signers for independence from England included the (inadvisable) enticement of senatorial powers so as to galvanize the union. They also decided that a slave was worth 3/5 of a man, and a woman nothing at all, when it came to representation. Women and blacks now have full representation and rights, and sense dictates also that state boundaries are comparatively artificial when considering the self-evidence that all people are equal in a plebiscite.
 
173
0
to the original question NO
theocracy is never democratic

and DID BuSh2 realy win both times or just cheat better harder and with inside help from jeb and the computer vote Co. ????

and is there any case ever when states rights are a GOOD IDEA
they allways are at odds with the peoples rights
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,405
4,653
ray b said:
and is there any case ever when states rights are a GOOD IDEA
they allways are at odds with the peoples rights
That's not quite what it means. "States rights" is really a [poor] way of saying "state's powers." Things like roads are built and maintained by the state government or delegated further to the local governments. Police are the same way. Various crimes are prosecuted on the state and local level instead of the national level. So the question was/is about how far those rights/powers extend, not whether they should exist at all.

The Civil War was partly about whether or not a state had the right (the people of the state had the collective right) to cecede from the union. The answer to that is no, because of this clause of the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What this means is no right granted by the federal government can be taken away by a state government. This should have been self-evident, but it didn't say it anywhere in the Constitution, so it was clarified in the 14th Amendment.

And this applies to the civil war because the "states right" to cecede would preclude federal protection of individual rights, and thus would be unconstitutional. Its a clever catch-22.

In any case, the fact that a considerable fraction of government operates at the state level and below is why state representation in the Senate (and electoral college) makes sense.
 
Last edited:
3,074
3
russ_watters
In any case, the fact that a considerable fraction of government operates at the state level and below is why state representation in the Senate (and electoral college) makes sense.
Except when that "level below" involves 200,000,000 individuals overcoming states' powers.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,405
4,653
Loren Booda said:
russ_wattersExcept when that "level below" involves 200,000,000 individuals overcoming states' powers.
Huh? Not following...
 
3,074
3
In other words, if states provide legitimate centers of power, certainly individuals as fundamentals of government surpass them in number and naturalness.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
4
Russ was referring to services that are provided by states. The only context in which your statement makes sense is if you are referring to privately owned companies (which are legally considered individuals) providing the same services. If you are only trying to say that privately owned companies could provide the services better and more efficiently than either the state or federal government, you're probably right in most cases. At least I would agree with you.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top