Login or register
Online User List [+] Online: (4): drastronomy, pebar, theism, whoozy, anonymous(6).
#14334 - yourbed
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
So, what do you guys think of this?
User avatar #14565 to #14334 - Patheos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2012) [-]
This honestly pisses me off. I feel bad for anybody in Uganda, especially the gays now. I sincerely hope they can get out of that country quickly.
User avatar #14357 to #14334 - rageisfunny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
If you are a homosexual in Uganda I advise moving.
User avatar #14345 to #14334 - Yardie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
Democracy at work.

Funny how people don't understand how harmful to a country rule by majority is. We're doing the same thing here in the America almost, with politicians buying votes and such, just economically and obviously not as harsh.
User avatar #14347 to #14345 - reretzu
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
It's a big problem...

A lot of people are just plain stupid and will vote as such and a lot of people are heavily religious and vote as such, forcing their religious ethics on other people. (Not that anything is wrong with being religious.)

But yet, we can't really have a system where only some people are allowed to vote, it wouldn't be a true democracy or free country and who decides who can vote and who can't?
User avatar #14348 to #14347 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
If we actually followed our constitution, things would work out a lot better. Unfortunately our constitution has been being shit on ever since the early 1900s.

Our Constitution is set up to prevent the disaster of Democracy, and a lot of people don't understand that. We're not a free country the second we become a true democracy, and we're steadily shifting towards that.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
-Thomas Jefferson
User avatar #14359 to #14348 - deltadeltadelta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
I don't think you understand what your constitution is. Aside from the Patriot Act, the US government hasn't really done anything "unconstitutional".

If you have a problem with your democratic system, then take issue with the fact that your system of government hasn't ever changed (and as such is broken), as well as the current SCOTUS which believes corporations are people.
#14449 to #14359 - natedizzie
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #14363 to #14359 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
It has changed though. The Federal Government used to have a minimal role, and now it is shifting towards a large role. The Federal Government by Constitutional standards is meant only for National Defense, and all else is meant to be run by State governments.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Federal Government has broken this so many times. Say all you want, but by the Constitution the only jobs the Federal Government has are Foreign Affairs and National Defense. The Federal Government is not there to provide welfare, medicare, social security, job programs, subsidies, etc. This is meant to be done at the state level as stated in the 10th amendment. The only way a Federal Policy should be put in place is if every single state adopts the policy on their own.

I don't think you understand what our Constitution is. It might be outdated, but its intention is to protect the rights of citizens, which has been undermined as of recent.

The system was not meant to be set up as a two party system

The system was not meant to give the government a strong power over its people

The system was not meant for majority rules in every case.
User avatar #14413 to #14363 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/14/2012) [-]
Say all you want, but it is not your job to interpret the constitution. It is the role of the courts. Additionally, the reason the federal government has intervened so much in state affairs is because states were unable to humanely govern themselves. e.g. black civil rights.

It's a two party system because the voters have allowed it to happen. There's no way you can prevent the creation of a two party system if two parties have such strong support.

There are safeguards in place for the people to void passed legislation.

Majority rule is the fairest practical option available. Do you have any alternatives?
User avatar #14367 to #14363 - deltadeltadelta
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
That's not what system of government means. It refers to your executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it state that each individual state is to be its own autonomous republic.

There are 27 amendments to the US constitution. The US adds amendments when it needs to. If the US just went by the original 10 amendments from the Bill of Rights, then black people would still only be considered 3/5 of a person.

The US has always been a two-party system. It started out with the Federalist party and the Democratic-Republican party. The US system has never functioned in a way that would allow a third party to have significance.

What your saying isn't true. You're just hoping it is because it would vindicate your beliefs and fit your political narrative.
User avatar #14371 to #14367 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
Nowhere in the original Constitution does it say that African Americans are 3/5 of a person. Forcing African American votes to count as 3/5 of a person is unconstitutional, as it infringes on their rights as citizens, however this didn't only effect African Americans, it effected all servants and slaves, including white indentured servants. Also with the abolition of slavery and indentured servitude, this section was rendered useless anyways, as the law was only meant to effect those that were "not free" and the enforcement of it on African American citizens was unconstitutional.

I only said it was never intended to run off of a 2 party system. Don't get my words mixed up.

I can say the same thing to you. Everybody has their own views on something, and you seem to be twisting it to your advantage as well. Bias always exists.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the Constitution is perfect, I'm simply saying that if we followed the Constitution we'd be better off than we are now. I think you're misunderstanding that.
User avatar #14404 to #14371 - deltadeltadelta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/14/2012) [-]
The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It was overruled with the 13th amendment, which was adopted in 1865.
User avatar #14406 to #14404 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/14/2012) [-]
It doesn't state any race but Native Americans. It only effects non-free men. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify voting eligibility; the Amendments (14, 15, and 19) were put in place to override state legislation. The 13th amendment did not directly cancel out the clause you stated, but the clause became useless because slavery and servitude were abolished. If for whatever reason there was some kind of Indentured Servitude Act, where criminals become indentured servants, they would only count as 3/5 a person by our constitution, regardless of race.

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove there. White servants were counted too as part of the clause. Or did you think slavery only applied to African Americans?
User avatar #14409 to #14406 - deltadeltadelta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/14/2012) [-]
Considering only Blacks were slaves, and every Black person in nearly every slave state was a slave...

I don't know where you're getting the indentured servitude from. Indentured servants were still free men, but contracted to work for a set period of time. They were not property.
User avatar #14411 to #14409 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/14/2012) [-]
Yeah I was wrong about the indentured servants relation to the 3/5 clause. I don't even know how we got to arguing about this though.
User avatar #14349 to #14348 - reretzu
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/13/2012) [-]
Completely agreed.