# The reasons the US Government is different from any others in the world.



## BobF (Jan 17, 2015)

Sometimes I see questions about why our government is different from others.    There are many reasons and I post some here.   These are not my ideas as they are based on our Constitution and the structure chosen for us to follow.   It has worked well for over 200 years but in the recent 50 or so years there is a lot of effort from some to make the US government just like some of the European governments.   I sure hope that never happens to us.   Australia has been looking toward a Republic style of government but so far not a lot of enthusiasm for such a change.

The items I have presented are some of the basics of this countries governments to follow.   Cities, counties, states, US Government should all be following these guidelines.   Enjoy the readings.
...................................

Some folks seem to be confused about the US government and how it operates.     The US government is a Republic which is not the same as a Democracy.    The following portions of an explanatory document spell out the differences.    I have added emphasis in places, and other links.     Plenty here for those interested in knowing about the US government and why it is so much different from so many other governments.     We the people..........     We are not linked to any communist or socialist ideology at all.     Our Congressmen are elected by the people, the President is elected by the people.    No one is ever elected by the party except for those elected by the people to lead the majority and minority parts of our Congress House of Representatives and the Leader of the Senate.    The two operating parties we now have can be replaced at any time if the electorate stops voting for them and select another party instead.     We can also, and do, elect independents with no party attached.    There is no such thing as a party described in the Constitution.   


http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html


An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic​ It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar _forms_ of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular _type_ of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar _forms_ of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-_type_ government in general, as well as a specific _form_ of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.



*These two *_*forms*_* of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical,* reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.


A Democracy


*The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. *In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.


This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.



In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority.


<Clip>


A Republic


A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different _form_, or system, of government. *Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly,* as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.


 <Clip>


 This is all from the following source of information under Part II, [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic[/FONT] 


http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html



*[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The American Ideal of 1776[/FONT]*​ *[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Twelve Basic American Principles[/FONT]*​ [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976 *[/FONT]​ …[FONT=Times New Roman, serif].................[/FONT]​ http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html​ 
​ *U.S. Constitution Online *​ [h=3]*Preamble *_*Note*_[/h] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 …..................



http://www.lexrex.com/informed/foundingdocuments/declaration.htm



The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.​ …........................



http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
 [h=2]The Gettysburg Address[/h] *Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863* 
 …..................


----------



## BobF (Jan 18, 2015)

Well, after 24 hours, I see 51 have looked in.    Glad to see that interest.     Disappointed there were no comments for or against what I posted about the US being a Republic and that is different from being a democracy.

Maybe more will get time to look in and we will still get some responses.


----------



## darroll (Jan 18, 2015)

The US is a real mess now.

The voters should have their heads examined.

Like someone told me that they voted the way they did was to get even with the red-necks?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 18, 2015)

Ok, I'll bite.

I've had a bit of a look around your links.

What is your position on the 17th Amendment - keep or repeal?


----------



## BobF (Jan 18, 2015)

I think the 17th amendment was done to keep the politicians from appointing those they like rather than letting the people make those choices.    So who says we should be revisiting the 17th amendment and changing it somehow?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 18, 2015)

The suggestion I read was that it was an attack on federalism.
Can't see it myself which is why I was asking.


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> The suggestion I read was that it was an attack on federalism.
> Can't see it myself which is why I was asking.



Yes it is an attack on federalism as the states were here first and the decision to have a central government was part of their decision.    State would again like to have their leadership returned as it should be.   The US can not live much longer with the current style of government of Obama for sure.    We know have a debt of $18 trillion, which is far greater than our debt of $7.5 trillion of 8 years back.   We currently have an out of control government that seems to see no reason for justice and concern for our futures at all.   Our next election will be quite important and it could be the end to the US as we now know it and straight down into a federal government controls all, taxes, where it is spent, who gets it, no more private inputs will be allowed.   Pretty dark when compared to our past ways of the previous 200 years of sharing with the states and controlling the central government.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 19, 2015)

Yes, Federalism was required to set the rules on how states should get along in regard to all aspects of commercial and people matters, such as monopolies and segregation for example.  The three branches of the Federal Government have managed to help make this the greatest nation on earth to date, but big money is taking over and we may slip...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 19, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Yes, Federalism was required to set the rules on how states should get along in regard to all aspects of commercial and people matters, such as monopolies and segregation for example.  The three branches of the Federal Government have managed to help make this the greatest nation on earth to date, but big money is taking over and we may slip...



We will slip because many of the biggest Corporations who are the worst offenders are multi-national and couldn't care less about the USA or it's workers.  Unfair trade practices have contributed immensely.  Making it easy, and in fact rewarding American companies to move production overseas to take advantage of cheap unskilled labor, non-existent environmental regulations and tax shelters.  Our own government has screwed the American people over the last 30 years.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2015)

I understand the difference between a democracy and a republic.
i understand the difference between a written and an unwritten constitution.
But aren't France and Germany both federal republics?

France re-writes it's constitution every so often; they are now on their 5th Republic...


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

Seems to be some confusion on what Federalism is so I will post a larger, more general description.    For me, I see myself holding on to an earlier version of rules and do think that it is in the Constitution and the courts to have made the current decisions.   I do not think any President should have the powers, other than directly specified, to demand that all follow the Presidents demands.    That is why we have a Congress made up of people chosen by the people to debate and resolve what actually gets done to, or for, the US.   We currently have a problem with a President that has set up a bunch of agencies outside the control of Congress to do just as he wishes.   Anyway, here is the US description of what Federalism is supposed to be for the US.

Federalism changes in each country where it is recognized.   So I will just post the US portion of this wiki explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism#United_States

*United States*

 Main article: Federalism in the United States

Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between state governments and the federal government of the United States. American government has evolved from a system of dual federalism to one of associative federalism. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." (1)

The United States is composed of fifty self-governing states and several territories.

Because the states were preexisting political entities, the U.S. Constitution did not need to define or explain federalism in any one section but it often mentions the rights and responsibilities of state governments and state officials in relation to the federal government. The federal government has certain _express powers_ (also called _enumerated powers_) which are powers spelled out in the Constitution, including the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, the _Necessary and Proper Clause_ gives the federal government the _implied power_ to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers. Other powers—the _reserved powers_—are reserved to the people or the states.[10] The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments—as well as the overall claim of the Civil War, that the states were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government.

The Federalist Party of the United States was opposed by the Democratic-Republicans, including powerful figures such as Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republicans mainly believed that: the Legislature had too much power (mainly because of the Necessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked; the Executive had too much power, and that there was no check on the executive; a dictator would arise; and that a bill of rights should be coupled with the constitution to prevent a dictator (then believed to eventually be the president) from exploiting and/or tyrannizing citizens. The federalists, on the other hand, argued that it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather, rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts.

After the American Civil War, the federal government increased greatly in influence on everyday life and in size relative to the state governments. Reasons included the need to regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to secure civil rights, and the provision of social services. The federal government acquired no substantial new powers until the acceptance by the Supreme Court of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

From 1938 until 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court did not invalidate any federal statute as exceeding Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Most actions by the federal government can find some legal support among the express powers, such as the Commerce Clause, whose applicability has been narrowed by the Supreme Court in recent years. In 1995 the Supreme Court rejected the Gun-Free School Zones Act in the Lopez decision, and also rejected the civil remedy portion of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 in the _United States v. Morrison_ decision. Recently, the Commerce Clause was interpreted to include marijuana laws in the _Gonzales v. Raich_ decision.

Dual federalism holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.

However, since the Civil War Era, the national courts often interpret the federal government as the final judge of its own powers under dual federalism. The establishment of Native American governments (which are separate and distinct from state and federal government) exercising limited powers of sovereignty, has given rise to the concept of "bi-federalism."


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

Vivjen said:


> I understand the difference between a democracy and a republic.
> i understand the difference between a written and an unwritten constitution.
> But aren't France and Germany both federal republics?
> 
> France re-writes it's constitution every so often; they are now on their 5th Republic...



I don't understand your question.    If they are Republics, same as the US, then why are they different?    Must be some differences but I am not about to read all countries constitutions to bring any arguments.    Also, what is an unwritten constitution?    How could they exist and who actually has one?

Not trying to pick a fight, just do not understand your post.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2015)

UK has an unwritten constitution.
but you stated that US was different from any other country in the world..
i am just not convinced that it is that different from some other federal republics; although size obviously brings it's own differences.

i realise that you in no way want a democratic monarchy, but I don't mind it!


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

Vivjen said:


> UK has an unwritten constitution.
> but you stated that US was different from any other country in the world..
> i am just not convinced that it is that different from some other federal republics; although size obviously brings it's own differences.
> 
> i realise that you in no way want a democratic monarchy, but I don't mind it!



Please read my post and make sure you read the difference between Democracy and Republic.    For the people that is a big difference.   Reply with examples of why the US is not different from other countries.   We are definitely not the same as the UK.   And what does UK's unwritten constitution say?   Can their non stated comments hold up in court?   Just about everything the US does can, and has, been tested in courts from local courts, state courts, and US courts with the Supreme Court also have judged on many things.    What on my opening pages is wrong in your mind so that the US does not stand alone in our operation.   The US Constitution has been with us for well over 200 years and no reasons right now to change it.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 19, 2015)

Democratic monarchy=oxymoron


----------



## Davey Jones (Jan 19, 2015)

BobF said:


> Well, after 24 hours, I see 51 have looked in.    Glad to see that interest.     Disappointed there were no comments for or against what I posted about the US being a Republic and that is different from being a democracy.
> 
> Maybe more will get time to look in and we will still get some responses.




It could be,Bob, it is to much to read by the older folks on here,Im kinda one of them(g)


----------



## rt3 (Jan 19, 2015)

The constitution is there so anyone with reading skills can hold it up to any politician and clearly see who is breaking the law sue that politician, win and receive servance. Name one country other country in the world where this is possible.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2015)

France; why is it's Republic that different?


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

Vivjwn, for you, I say read the two and post the differences you see.   Making claims but not defining is not good enough.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2015)

I bow out of this....


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> It could be,Bob, it is to much to read by the older folks on here,Im kinda one of them(g)



Hi Davey.    I am 81 heading toward 82.    Sometimes hard to follow some folks thinking, so I try not to do so.   But mostly find it fun to challenge and post such.


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

Vivjen said:


> I bow out of this....



Sorry about that Vivjen.    I was unable to learn anything from your several posts.   Maybe another time will be better.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2015)

As an aside; New Zealand and Israel also have unwritten constitution.......no further comment!


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

I still don't know what an unwritten constitution is.   If nothing is written, what good is it and what does it say?   A hard to understand comment.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 19, 2015)

The difference between political systems, economic , and social systems is very complex. Given that the constitution is the guiding document each state is allowed to make up its own laws, literally, which at sometimes are against federal. Over lay that with enforcement and the differences between interpretation and it gets even grayer. In the U.S. the laws regarding commerce out number all other laws combined. When you consider the state of Cal. Has a The sixth largest economy in the world, and the city of Los Angeles has a larger (and a thousand times better funded) police department than the armies of most countries you can start to see the problem. This places an incredible burden on the judicial system. Even if you could set down the similarities/differences between the word differences between the various governments of the world the qualifications and exceptions would be insurmountable. Just discussing the tax basis of various countries  can ruin your day.

as an example, France's method of dealing with imports always gives me a chuckle. All ports are open and you can sell anything you want there, so they call it a free country. What they don't say -- There are only 2-3 duties inspectors so your stuff may sit on the dock for several years. Is this any better than having the ports in the US allegedly controlled by organized crime? Beats me. All the man on the street sees is - there are no riots at US ports, and there is nobody around the ports in France to riot.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 19, 2015)

Most of our law comes from England thru Matlock. New England state statues revolve more around old English law, and the west Spanish law. Laws in England were never written down and have their orgin in the Arthurian legends. 

If if your interesting 
"inventing the Middle Ages" by Cantor is a good start.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2015)

A definition for you to ponder on, BobF.
then I really must go and do something!

An unwritten constitution is one not embodied in a single document but based chiefly on custom and precedent as expressed in statutes and judicial decisions.

A statute commands or forbids something, or declares policy.

remember, it has taken us nigh on 1500 years to reach this point; only under Oliver Cromwell have we not been a monarchy, and that was only 12 years.

we have had no successful revolutions, or invasions.....so our system has evolved....

you our had an advantage of learning from our; and everybody else's mistakes; when you wrote yours; though how that explains Israel and New Zealand I have no idea!

the French redefine their Republic every so often; they are now on their 5th; 1958, I believe; which has a written constitution and a Bill of Rights...and 'departments' rather than states; but then they only have about 70 million people.

but as Rt3 says,this all gets very complex; and beyond my understanding.


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

Yes and rt3 forgot to mention Spanish in south east Florida and Georgia and French in Louisiana territory with Russian in our northwest.   You post was interesting for sure, but still not explaining how my post is wrong in your opinion.   The word Republic by itself may have no meaning, until it is use as described in my post of the US Republic.   Does France even have a description of what Republic means to them.?

In the document I used Democracy gives all power to those in the elected majority while Republic give power to all and controls the majority to allow the minority to also have a way to input and help control the nation.

A Republic


A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different _form_, or system, of government. *Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly,*  as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The  Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the  protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the  liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a  constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created  by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from  its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers  divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and  Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2015)

Yes, I believe the French Republic is similar....


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

And that is highly likely as the French 'helped' the US founders to develop our Constitution and early rules.   At least that is what we were taught in grade school years.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2015)

The French are your oldest ally; according to Obama...


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 19, 2015)

Vivjen said:


> The French are your oldest ally; according to Obama...



Not just President Obama, google it, there are pages of opinions on the subject.  One suggests it is not just the oldest ally but one of our biggest pains much of the time.  One needs to remember France fought with us against the British in 1778.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

No one said France was our BEST ally.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 19, 2015)

Somebody has the Freemasons and French confused (sorta sounds alike). And with that statue of Isis (excuse me liberty) standing in NY who woulda thunk its pointing the wrong way. Oh I forgot it is to welcome the poor, down trodden etc. Now if we could just get the draft back, we could just funnel Obama!s immigrants through there and win this civil war.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 19, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Not just President Obama, google it, there are pages of opinions on the subject.  One suggests it is not just the oldest ally but one of our biggest pains much of the time.  One needs to remember France fought with us against the British in 1778.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War
> 
> No one said France was our BEST ally.



And don't forget... they gave us the Statue of Liberty!!


----------



## rt3 (Jan 19, 2015)

And they did let us use their beaches during Ww 2. 
Don't forget their willingness to support the Confedercy 
lets go on --  Trick question. Why was Ben Franlkin chosen as French ambassador? As a spy, no he wanted to show them the key/lightening trick.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And don't forget... they gave us the Statue of Liberty!!



And we aren't giving it back either!!


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 19, 2015)

rt3 said:


> The constitution is there so anyone with reading skills can hold it up to any politician and clearly see who is breaking the law sue that politician, win and receive servance. Name one country other country in the world where this is possible.



Australia for one, except that I don't know what you mean by "servance".
We can take legislation before the High Court for a ruling. 
If found to be unconstitutional, the law is disallowed.
I think that is what happens in America too.

Breaking the law is a matter for the civil courts and doesn't involve the constitution.
Politicians are not above the law in this country.
I suggest that you check with Bobf on this matter. He knows his stuff (for the USA anyway).


----------



## oakapple (Jan 19, 2015)

Politicians are not above the law here either [nor is anyone else.] Magna Carta to thank for that.


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Australia for one, except that I don't know what you mean by "servance".
> We can take legislation before the High Court for a ruling.
> If found to be unconstitutional, the law is disallowed.
> I think that is what happens in America too.
> ...



My guess is the writer meant 'service'.

Warrigal, thanks for your claim of my knowing a lot.   Just not true from my memory.    But I sure do like to read on a topic and have no problems with posting links to what I consider to be good information.

What I think was the consideration in the previous posts was that when it is all written down in a Constitution it is fact, and the result of a complicated debate, not to be misconstrued.   To have to wait to get a higher court to do a reading and post a response is just waiting for an 'opinion'.    In the US if something in the Constitution is to be changed, there is a legal way to do that and it is done in the Congress with then a majority of states also approving prior to it becoming part of the US Constitution.    No court can point to the Constitution, or part of the Constitution, and say it is wrong.   Well, guess they could, but have no authorization and no way to force any changes if Congress does not agree.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 19, 2015)

Serverance (damn spell checker)
courts interpret legislation, as you point out


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 19, 2015)

We have a written constitution that is in many ways similar to the US constitution minus all the stuff about a president (federation of states, bicameral parliament, separation of powers etc) but we do not have a bill of rights because our rights are embedded in our laws, which as in England, are formed either by parliament (legislation) or in the courts by judicial decision. Both may be overturned on appeal. Black letter law (legislation) goes before the High Court (as in the USA) and judge made law can be challenged in a higher court until every appeal avenue is exhausted.

 The system works well for us. That doesn't mean I wouldn't mind a thorough, properly resourced, constitutional review to sort out some of the problems that time and history shows up. The question about the reserve powers of the Governor General remains an open one and needs to be clarified. The Queen of Australia cannot dismiss our federal government but her representative in Australia, the Governor General, did just that in 1972. It remains a very controversial issue to this day but fortunately we Aussies did not riot in the streets nor spray blood on the wattle. We just held an election, elected a different government and half of us sulked for years until we got over it.


----------



## BobF (Jan 19, 2015)

As long as it works for you folks, then not my problem.   And even if it does not work for you folks, really not my problem.

In the US it is not the courts but "We the people" and that is our Congress and why the Congress is our big decider.   Our Supreme Court can, and does, make decisions about our Constitution or laws.    Then it is back to the peoples representatives, Congress, to make the corrections or remove the problem.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 19, 2015)

What happens over here is that the High Court usually says that the legislation, as drafted, is unconstitutional. The government then drafts a new version and tries again. It's best to head off later problems with interpretation of any law with proper judicial oversight.

The High Court never makes law. It can only interpret laws written by the parliament and rule on matters of constitutionality.  It only does this if some matter is brought before it. It is the servant of the people, not the parliament. That is the essence of separation of powers.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 20, 2015)

So you furriners copied our way of doing things...


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 20, 2015)

Yes we did. But not your presidential executive layer.
Our version is more modern and streamlined than yours, having been designed in the 1890s.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 20, 2015)

Hmmm, that's right, you took the presidential lite approach...


----------



## flowerchild (Jan 20, 2015)

Bob, I am just now reading. It's a focused read mind you.
In talking about the fundamental law I seem to be focus on Freedom from Government-over-man. Isn't what Obama does when he just iron pens something with out congresses approval a way he's breaking this fundamental law? Just a thought I had while reading over the Basic American Principles of Governing as a Republic. It's a hard read Bob, something I'm sure the Supreme Courts go thru each and every time a case is brought to them for judgment. am I correct in saying that?


----------



## flowerchild (Jan 20, 2015)

rt3 said:


> The constitution is there so anyone with reading skills can hold it up to any politician and clearly see who is breaking the law sue that politician, win and receive servance. Name one country other country in the world where this is possible.


rt, you  are too funny....It's does relate to what's going on in congress these days doesn't it. Obama being one of the rules breakers. Sneaky, sly, and totally arrogant about it too! A real Chicago thug IMO. But do we the people have the money to sue? Nope!! so what happens, it gets allowed.


----------



## flowerchild (Jan 20, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Somebody has the Freemasons and French confused (sorta sounds alike). And with that statue of Isis (excuse me liberty) standing in NY who woulda thunk its pointing the wrong way. Oh I forgot it is to welcome the poor, down trodden etc. Now if we could just get the draft back, we could just funnel Obama!s immigrants through there and win this civil war.



Funnel thru and draft our immigrants? Oh ya, great idea!!! Why the heck not. Did they not do that with the blacks in the civil war to increase the numbers? Brilliant!


----------



## rt3 (Jan 20, 2015)

Define irony:  Declare war using freeing of slaves as a excuse, then conscript  immigrants  as troops to win that war.


----------

