Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Nonsense

January 28, 2013

What is this nonsense about "American Democracy"? No, our intended form of government is a confederacy, not a republic, not a democracy....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(37)

ToTEXASfromPA

Jan-28-13 6:00 AM

Marriage, in the eyes of God, is more sacred and permanent than the marriage and divorce in the eyes of the regulating governmental bodies and courts. To make your point you might consider another example. Or is that really the model for being a state in the United States?

Matthew 5:32 "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Jan-28-13 6:03 AM

"Each state must reclaim it's sovereignty, make many of the federal government's illegal edicts and regulations null and void and exercise the autonomy granted by the U.S. Constitution."

+++

That is what Colorado and Washington States are doing by legalizing mar ijuana. But the President is also telling the DEA, etc to stand down.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jan-28-13 7:06 AM

Holy crap Texas...I committed and still committing adultery after 31years. I quests I better starting throwing stones at my wife.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-28-13 7:35 AM

"Matthew 5:32 "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.""

What a great book! If a man divorces a woman, SHE'S an adulterer, but he's in the clear.

It's stunning to me that in the year 2013, someone could read that and think, "yeah, that sounds reasonable".

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-28-13 7:38 AM

"Marriage, in the eyes of God, is more sacred and permanent than the marriage and divorce in the eyes of the regulating governmental bodies and courts."

That's surprising, because I don't recall anytime, with the exception of common law marriage, that someone has been legally married without getting a marriage license first. And you don't go to a church to get one.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-28-13 8:18 AM

Mr. Knapp is un-American he hates the United States of America.

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jan-28-13 9:17 AM

Good letter Wayne.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-28-13 10:01 AM

Another un-American.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-28-13 11:13 AM

"No, our intended form of government is a confederacy, not a republic, not a democracy." Two thoughts: I agree that the Founding Fathers originally adopted the Articles of Confederation. But,I thought that we stopped being a confederacy and became a republic when the Constitution was adopted and replaced the Articles of Confederation. So, is it the author's belief that the Articles of Confederation should not have been replaced by the Constitution?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-28-13 11:18 AM

Some other thoughts: Given the lack of ability for parts of states, let alone parts of the country to agree on what is in the common good, I have little confidence in an increase in states' independence resulting in a benefit for the nation. In fact, I imagine that groups and countries that wish us ill, would look forward to us becoming a group of states with less and less cohesiveness. I also have little faith that we would "rally round the flag" as a nation when faced with danger. Just look at how long it took us to get involved in WWI and WWII.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-28-13 11:45 AM

Mr. Knapp makes a very good point. If you are not free to leave, you are not free at all. Another advantage of states being able to leave the union is that there would be much less talk of it. It's much easier to talk of suscession when you know that it is only talk. It would also require the federal government to be more responsive to the individual states. David is wrong, differences between the states would not weaken the country. If I could live the life I want by moving to another state, there would have no grievance with the federal government, which would strengthen the country. That's what the founders had in mind. This is not unAmerican at all, it is the very essence of America.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-28-13 11:51 AM

DavidBross,"But,I thought that we stopped being a confederacy and became a republic when the Constitution was adopted and replaced the Articles of Confederation."

You are mistaken. The Federal Government was constructed as a republican form of gevernment, but the relationship between the states and the federal government remained a confederacy, hense the term "Federal Government". It was never intended to be the national government that it has become.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-28-13 12:22 PM

It is not a true republic form of govenment as it is not a true democracy nor a true confederacy.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KrazyK

Jan-28-13 1:01 PM

Lincoln be damned! Wayne needs to take his fight to Gov. Corbett, then Corbett can tell the feds where to go. Sounds like Wayne has some recruits in this forum. Go for it.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Jan-28-13 1:05 PM

CMReeder Jan-28-13 8:18 AM*****"Mr. Knapp is un-American he hates the United States of America."

Dont worry everybody, only a couple more hours until Chuck has to work. Then we can have an adult conversation.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jan-28-13 1:22 PM

Many issues would be better dealt with if the states could try different approaches to them instead of the elitists of the federal government applying a single “solution.”

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Jan-28-13 2:23 PM

"Mr. Knapp is un-American he hates the United States of America."

Good post, troll. Thank God you're afraid of guns.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-28-13 11:23 PM

Not afraid of guns, don't like them.

So much for adult conversation after I left for work.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-28-13 11:24 PM

There seems to be this BIZARRE trend in the right wing the last couple years, where they almost openly say that actual people shouldn't be involved in electing our government "by, of, and for the people".

It all starts with anti-democratic chatter, then they try and steal elections all over the country by trying to make it as inconvenient as possible to perform their vital civic duty and vote. Then they fast forward to trying to push a plan that would have had Romney winning the election by as many as 28 electoral votes, even though he had over 5 million LESS votes cast for him than the winner.

I would say to the right, if you don't think we should have a participatory form of govt, great, then don't vote. Nobody's forcing you. Just sit out the next 10 or 12 election cycles, America will be MUCH better off than it is now, then you might have an easier time making your case.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-28-13 11:25 PM

Ritty it takes one to know one.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-28-13 11:32 PM

""Mr. Knapp is un-American he hates the United States of America."

Good post, troll. Thank God you're afraid of guns."

Couple points. If someone is against our government "by, of, and for the people", they really are, by definition anti-American.

Second point, liberals aren't typically "afraid" of guns." People that are "afraid of guns" by lots and lots of guns because they're terrified by the fact that other people have guns, and may be coming to try and kill them. Lots of liberals have guns, the big difference being, they don't NEED guns. I actually understand, that my guns introduce an element of risk, rather than safety, to my home environment.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Jan-29-13 7:27 AM

@Chris, You have certainly encapsulated the title of this LTE with your last post.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-29-13 8:00 AM

" trying to push a plan that would have had Romney winning the election by as many as 28 electoral votes, even though he had over 5 million LESS votes cast for him than the winner."

It's worth noting that a Republican in one state (I think it was VA), said he wanted to do this to "ensure all voices were heard". IOW, he advocated a law that would have ensured that the guy who lost the recent Presidential election by over 5 million votes, would have actually won the election. Ensure voices are heard? And isn't this being brought to us by the same party that's been screaming "election integrity" for the past couple years?

The great news is the only reason they're considering this is they see the coming shortage of angry white males, which are the fuel that runs the Republican party, and know the end is near for them.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Jan-29-13 3:56 PM

You must be very short on facts, Hayes, to be referrencing your OWN post, an obvious opinion, as a quotable fact. That's desperation, sir. But I also know that you truly lack intelligence, so what more can any of us expect? You actually seem to believe that those liberal who have guns have them only because they want them! What a super long stretch! I suppose you also believe that to make the observation that the Obama children have armed guards is somehow exploiting the children, since you have made that assertion. I've known people like you all my life, and they're all bluff, bluster and bovine excrement. Since they can't dazzle anybody with their brilliance, they always turn to trying to baffle with that bovine excrement.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-29-13 5:46 PM

"You actually seem to believe that those liberal who have guns have them only because they want them!"

Yep, some people actually have enough common sense, to only go out and purchase items that they want. You find that extraordinary?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 37 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web