NFB survey:

[Jeff_in_Atl]

What form of government does the United States have?

[Jeff_in_Atl]

No trick here. We were just having a discussion here at work. I'm not going to say a word about what is voted for.

I see all of these polls done about everything. I have never been polled. I just wanted to do an independent poll that I knew was accurate.

[Christopherrr]

picked mine...we need more votes...

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Originally posted by LimTeng99TransAm
picked mine...we need more votes...

Thank you! Yes we do. Even if you don't like politics. It doesn't matter. Just vote.

[markd79ta]

Do you want this answered literally(in its contemporary form) or technically(historically)? ...because we live in a (growing) socialist republic. The U.S. is a pattern of growing socialist, leveling off, growing more socialist, leveling off, and so on...which was a precedent started in the 1930s. There is a whole big long debate here...

Here is when directions switched, and the growth of the Federal Governemtn Started:

The case that showed Federal Enchroachment:
The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was overturned on May 27, 1935 when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (295 U.S. 495) (sometimes called the "sick chicken" case) that the Act encroached upon states' authority, unreasonably stretched the Commerce Clause, and gave legislative powers to code-makers in the executive branch.

The plan to bypass 140 years of pressadent: (Most of what the feds now do resides under the Commerce Clause...amazing!)
It appeared that the New Deal was doomed. But then FDR was reelected by a landslide, winning 46 of the 48 states. He then proposed a "court-packing plan", allowing him to appoint an additional Justice -- permitting a Court of up to 15 -- for each unretired Justice over 70. FDR claimed that this was not to change the rulings of the court, but to lessen the load on the older Justices, who he claimed were slowing the Court down.

Even though Democrats controlled Congress by large majorities, legislators, newspapers, and bar associations were all solidly against the plan. But his plan didn't need to pass to succeed. In what became known as "the switch in time that saved nine", Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Hughes switched sides in 1937 and upheld the National Labor Relations Act, which gave the National Labor Relations Board extensive power over unions across the country. In 1941 the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the Court even upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act as applied to wheat grown for homemade consumption. It seemed as if all limits had been abolished.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Originally posted by markd79ta
Do you want this answered literally(in its contemporary form) or technically(historically)? ...because we live in a (growing) socialist republic. The U.S. is a pattern of growing socialist, leveling off, growing more socialist, leveling off, and so on...which was a precedent started in the 1930s. There is a whole big long debate here...

Here is when directions switched, and the growth of the Federal Governemtn Started:

The case that showed Federal Enchroachment:
The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was overturned on May 27, 1935 when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (295 U.S. 495) (sometimes called the "sick chicken" case) that the Act encroached upon states' authority, unreasonably stretched the Commerce Clause, and gave legislative powers to code-makers in the executive branch.

The plan to bypass 140 years of pressadent: (Most of what the feds now do resides under the Commerce Clause...amazing!)
It appeared that the New Deal was doomed. But then FDR was reelected by a landslide, winning 46 of the 48 states. He then proposed a "court-packing plan", allowing him to appoint an additional Justice -- permitting a Court of up to 15 -- for each unretired Justice over 70. FDR claimed that this was not to change the rulings of the court, but to lessen the load on the older Justices, who he claimed were slowing the Court down.

Even though Democrats controlled Congress by large majorities, legislators, newspapers, and bar associations were all solidly against the plan. But his plan didn't need to pass to succeed. In what became known as "the switch in time that saved nine", Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Hughes switched sides in 1937 and upheld the National Labor Relations Act, which gave the National Labor Relations Board extensive power over unions across the country. In 1941 the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the Court even upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act as applied to wheat grown for homemade consumption. It seemed as if all limits had been abolished.

That's exactly right. But I am referring to legally not someone's interpretation based on their feeling of what they think it should be. What are the current regulations governing our type of government as set forth in the constitution and laws of this country. Even FDRs social programs does not change the difference between democracy and a republic. It does add socialism into the equation which is why I included it in the survey. But socialism adds a lot more than social security.

Actually I wanted to get an opinion without any explanations as a baseline.

socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

democracy.
1 : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

re·pub·lic
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

[TraceZ]

I think our taxes are unreasonable and that our freedoms are getting stripped from us. The government is redristributing wealth on a grand scale. I voted Socialist, in protest.

I dont mind paying taxes to maintain the citys, or help disabled people live... but it is going way beyond that now. The government is getting there fingers involved in everything, and all they do is screw it up and make it cost more. We are being double and tripple taxed, they get us coming and going. All you can do is bend over and take it up the rear.

We need some campaign finance laws. There should be a fixed sum provided to all candidates, and donations should be forbidden. Screw the special interest groups. Washington politics shoud be based on what is fair and right, not who donated the most $$.

Sorry for the rant.

[markd79ta]

Originally posted by Jeff 95 Z28
What are the current regulations governing our type of government as set forth in the constitution and laws of this country.>

The problem with answering this question is this: ...the Federal Government operates outside of its charter set forth in the constitution as well as the interpretation of what is constitutional has become "relative" and now open to "POLITICAL" interpretation. In other words, the obvious choice of Republic becomes a shade of grey; and what the Federal Government does in terms of legality is also relative. There is a lot more then just New Deal programs that are thrusting this country toward socialism...takings, Federal encroachment and mandates on states and communities of interest, social regulation/engineering are hitting our society in never ending quantities...the social growth of the "Great Society" programs in the 60s, the addition of a Department of Education in the 70s, and so on. The concept of land use and what constitutes private property is under fire, government entities especially at the local and county level continually regulate citizens out of their property without just compensation for the so-called "good" of the community. There may be a Political Science textbook answer to this survey, but when it comes down to practical analysis...the answer is no longer clear-cut. The war of special interests has taken over the Federal Government (as well as state legislatures), and it is anybody's ballgame. The 1930s proved that the appropriate avenue of amending the charter (constitution) was not the amending process, but rather the road of relative interpretation. Anyhow, I will get off my soapbox...but these problems are why I left the game...I had a promising political career, but I just couldn't tolerate the way things were done.

[markd79ta]

Originally posted by TraceZ
I think our taxes are unreasonable and that our freedoms are getting stripped from us. The government is redristributing wealth on a grand scale. I voted Socialist, in protest.

I dont mind paying taxes to maintain the citys, or help disabled people live... but it is going way beyond that now. The government is getting there fingers involved in everything, and all they do is screw it up and make it cost more. We are being double and tripple taxed, they get us coming and going. All you can do is bend over and take it up the rear.

We need some campaign finance laws. There should be a fixed sum provided to all candidates, and donations should be forbidden. Screw the special interest groups. Washington politics shoud be based on what is fair and right, not who donated the most $$.

Sorry for the rant.

Actually, your proposal of campaign finance helps special interests rather then hurt them. It places the candidates at a disadvantage of defending their agenda against special interest advertisements and PR campaigns. Unfortunately or fortunately, special interests have the right to freely express their ideas. During campaign seasons, they express them a lot. You will see it this year...every group and their mother will be buying TV time to promote the party candidate that specifically aligns themselves with their particular ideology. Additionally, once we get into campaign finance reform and especially term limits, we start turning over power to the lobbyists and staff. It is amazing how term limits, in effect, dumb down a legislative body thus increasing their reliance on special interest lobbyists for info.

Really, the problem resides with the government operating outside of its charter (the constitution). And, honestly, it is a snowball that will keep getting bigger. As it gets bigger, you will see more and more corruption and waste. The public, as a whole, look to the government (especially federal) for any and all services and the vehicle for their particular agenda or cause. It tries to be all things to all people. It consumes at alarming rates. And, it railroads over people to push its agendas. It is a living breathing personification of the divergent causes and needs of its people. It will keep growing and devouring liberties and freedoms in the name of a cause, and we are left with little power to stop it.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Originally posted by markd79ta
The problem with answering this question is this: ...the Federal Government operates outside of its charter set forth in the constitution as well as the interpretation of what is constitutional has become "relative" and now open to "POLITICAL" interpretation. In other words, the obvious choice of Republic becomes a shade of grey; and what the Federal Government does in terms of legality is also relative. There is a lot more then just New Deal programs that are thrusting this country toward socialism...takings, Federal encroachment and mandates on states and communities of interest, social regulation/engineering are hitting our society in never ending quantities...the social growth of the "Great Society" programs in the 60s, the addition of a Department of Education in the 70s, and so on. The concept of land use and what constitutes private property is under fire, government entities especially at the local and county level continually regulate citizens out of their property without just compensation for the so-called "good" of the community. There may be a Political Science textbook answer to this survey, but when it comes down to practical analysis...the answer is no longer clear-cut. The war of special interests has taken over the Federal Government (as well as state legislatures), and it is anybody's ballgame. The 1930s proved that the appropriate avenue of amending the charter (constitution) was not the amending process, but rather the road of relative interpretation. Anyhow, I will get off my soapbox...but these problems are why I left the game...I had a promising political career, but I just couldn't tolerate the way things were done.

You and Zell Miller.

You are exactly right. The constitutions states that we are a republic but special interest groups (their money buying politicians) are pushing everything to the left towards socialism. Republicans are no longer to the right. They are the center compared to 50 years ago. I'm hoping people will get fed up with the current political situation which will bring rise to the libertarian party which is more like the Federalist party of the 1850s.

My idea for the post was something my daughter and I were discussing about how the public school system teaches the kids about the government. I'll admit that when I was in school I was taught this country was a democracy. It's not. It's a republic. The difference is subtle but there is a difference. Basically democracy is rule of the people. A republic is a rule of law made by the people. Republics makes the "rules" more consistent and less susceptible to change by the whims of people moods and attitudes. I was just curious what other people thought this country was since I had it wrong. I went and read the constitution and nowhere does it mention democracy. In fact if you read what some of the people wrote in their notes about creating the constitution, you'll find that they were afraid of democracies and they wrote the constitution so that the US was not a democracy. I see our great country crumbling beneath us and yes it bothers me. Under a democracy, the people could say ok no more cars over 200 horse power. It's not needed. Everybody has to take their car in and have it detuned in order to get a new tag. Don't laugh. That's what a democracy can do.

TraceZ I understand your protest. I was more curious to see who would say we are a democracy.

[firebird8769]

we are officially called a "Democratic Republic"...

[fastTa]

I am still proud to call the good ole' USA a democratic nation.

[Kevin - Blown 95 TA]

Originally posted by firebird8769
we are officially called a "Democratic Republic"...

This is my answer also. Getting more screwed up by the minute, but still the best country on Earth. Veterans will continue to fight and die on foreign soil for others who stay safe at home and exercise their 1st ammendment rights to criticize our nation.

[TraceZ]

Originally posted by markd79ta
Actually, your proposal of campaign finance helps special interests rather then hurt them. It places the candidates at a disadvantage of defending their agenda against special interest advertisements and PR campaigns. Unfortunately or fortunately, special interests have the right to freely express their ideas. During campaign seasons, they express them a lot. You will see it this year...every group and their mother will be buying TV time to promote the party candidate that specifically aligns themselves with their particular ideology. Additionally, once we get into campaign finance reform and especially term limits, we start turning over power to the lobbyists and staff. It is amazing how term limits, in effect, dumb down a legislative body thus increasing their reliance on special interest lobbyists for info.

Really, the problem resides with the government operating outside of its charter (the constitution). And, honestly, it is a snowball that will keep getting bigger. As it gets bigger, you will see more and more corruption and waste. The public, as a whole, look to the government (especially federal) for any and all services and the vehicle for their particular agenda or cause. It tries to be all things to all people. It consumes at alarming rates. And, it railroads over people to push its agendas. It is a living breathing personification of the divergent causes and needs of its people. It will keep growing and devouring liberties and freedoms in the name of a cause, and we are left with little power to stop it.

That is an interesting perspective. I see some logic in it, so ... what is the answer then?

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Originally posted by TraceZ
That is an interesting perspective. I see some logic in it, so ... what is the answer then?

I wish I knew. Be informed. Learn. and vote. Don't just vote because of what some people say. Listen and read multiple sources from all sides. Write letters to your representatives. I wrote Max Cleland a letter and he or one of his staff actually wrote me back.

It's very frustrating to listen and read what is going on some times. I get so aggravated.

I would suggest to everyone to get and read Zell Millers book "A Party No More". It's not just for conservatives or bashing democrats. He talks about the corruption in Washington on both sides. About how special interest groups have taken over and about how they buy off congressional representatives.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846