>A democracy is a form of
>government in which people are
>allowed to vote on representatives,
>government officials, and often vote
>on certain government issues (referendums)
>with no regard to the
>laws made prior. The
>system is quite simple; majority
>rules.
>

With no reference to prior laws? I doubt that. That may be the official definition, but in real life referendums are about changing, adding or repealing laws. Plus all "democratic" countries (I believe) have bodies which examine the legality of all new laws (whether made by referendum or by the legislative body). And BTW, how often are there referendums? Not often, apart from Switzerland. It's not really a common law-making device.

>A constitutional republic is a form
>of government in which representatives
>are elected democratically, but the
>laws that are made by
>the representatives cannot go above
>the chief law document of
>the land (the Constitution).
>All laws must be written
>in accordance to that document,
>or they are null and
>void. A republic puts
>the law above people.
>

Sure, but that Constitution can be modified. In France, we are at the 5th Republic, which means that were are using the 5th Constitution. The 4 others collapsed for various reasons (often war, Napoleon...).

>You see, the problem with democracy
>is that the majority wins,
>and do not take the
>minority's views into consideration, which
>can lead to oppression.

It's funny how "power to the people" leads to oppression.

>For example, suppose this country
>was to go entirely democratic,
>and Christians get a national
>referendum on next year's ballot
>voting on whether or not
>to make the US a
>Christian state. Of course,
>the Constitution has already said
>no government will respect or
>honor a religion. However,
>in a democracy majority rules,
>and as long as they
>have 51% of the vote,
>this will be a Christian
>state. It's the same
>way with almost every issue.
>

Wouldn't that rather be a referendum about eliminating the freedom of religious practice?
You believe that being a democracy means that all previous laws have no power?
In your example, let's assume that the State granted freedom of religious practice. A referendum to make the State Christian would be deemed illegal and void. However a referendum to remove the freedom of religious practice would be possible. Although that would go against the bill of Human Rights (and in Europe would be nullified by the EU).

>
>As for my quote, the logic
>is quite simple.....

I was talking about the sheep/wolf part. The other part isn't particularly entertaining.

>There is another thing too.
>If you heard Al Gore's
>speech last week you would
>have heard him talking about
>a tax cut Bush is
>trying to prepare in which
>for every $10 the rich
>gets,

Gets in income or tax cuts?

>the middle class would
>get a dime and the
>poor a penny.

In tax cuts, income or in assistance?

Why
>is that? Because that's
>exactly how the tax rolls
>are now. The rich
>would simply get back what
>they paid.
>

As you can see, I didn't understand what you were talking about, please explain. However, it seems to fly in the face of your "the rich will get sick of paying for assistance to the poor" theory.

>The Libertarian Party, the only party
>that wants to actually shrink
>the size of the federal
>government, believes the Constitution nor
>the Founding Fathers did not
>want government to be in
>control of peoples' lives.
>The essence of government is
>the lack of power the
>government has and the power
>the people actually have.
>Therefore, alot of these government
>programs gotta go, and restore
>faith in the private sector.
>
>

I don't want the government to be overly powerful (an assumption you made in our previous, more heated debates :-) ). However, neither do I want the private sector (or rather, individual companies) to be controlling my life (you however, seem to want this). I want to control my own life. I think a step in that direction would be democracy executed at many levels, voting much more frequently and much more easily (i.e. not making it so people have to go out of there way on a special day to vote).

>As for Britain and France, I
>dunno much about their governments.
> I do know that
>a "constitutional monarchy" is
>mainly a fraud, since Elizabeth
>nor any of the royal
>family has any political power
>and are mainly figureheads.

That's what constitutional monarchy means.

>I think I would call
>them a feudal democracy,

lol

>since
>the House of Lords is
>done by birthright,

Yeah, I'm always outraged by that shit (I went to university in the UK for 3 years), and by the trouble they're having in getting rid of it, and the mess they're making of doing that.

>Now do you understand the sig?

As I said, you explained the wrong part! But it's all good now.

>Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian
>Conservative.

Has the "Libertarian" been added recently, Or was I a victim of selective reading?

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")