@TheChief Uh... I don't think you're actually responding to the content of what I said?
A political leader who advocates, for example, stripping certain citizens of their right or practical ability to vote, takes, I would argue, a highly undemocratic position. Yet politicians who espouse these views are able to run, and to be elected, under our laws.
The fact that the Constitution exists doesn't mean that politicians don't put forth anti-democratic views. They do that all the time!
Beyond which, _of course_, the issue of what exactly the Constitution actually says and means is the opposite of settled; it is probably the most vexing issue in our political system.
You know that half of what Trump espouse, and Cruz espoused, contravene the Constitution according to many people's lights -- though not to their own. And yet they're making viable political runs. Evidently, the existence of the Constitution doesn't prevent a candidate from espousing, say, banning entry to the country on the basis of religion, or revoking the right to privacy in the same basis. Are those democratic ideas? Yet, somehow, the existence of the Constitution hasn't prevented them from being viably put forth in the public arena... because our democracy doesn't work that way.
I've also seen you say _yourself_ that things that have happened under Obama's watch are unConstitutional (specifically, the Supreme Court's striking down the DoM Act). I don't agree with you; the Supreme Court didn't agree with you; the Obama administration didn't agree with you. But lots of people do. Lots of people also think Obamacare is unConstitutional, and lots don't. "What one can do" around the stipulations in the Constitution has _so much wiggle room_ that defining it is the whole damn job of one of our branches of government, and a big part of the others. So "the Constitution exists" is hardly a simple answer to any kind of question.
Regarding European and U.S. governments: uh, I'm not sure what question, or statement, you think you're addressing here?
0
@TheChief Uh... I don't think you're actually responding to the content of what I said?
A political leader who advocates, for example, stripping certain citizens of their right or practical ability to vote, takes, I would argue, a highly undemocratic position. Yet politicians who espouse these views are able to run, and to be elected, under our laws.
The fact that the Constitution exists doesn't mean that politicians don't put forth anti-democratic views. They do that all the time!
Beyond which, _of course_, the issue of what exactly the Constitution actually says and means is the opposite of settled; it is probably the most vexing issue in our political system.
You know that half of what Trump espouse, and Cruz espoused, contravene the Constitution according to many people's lights -- though not to their own. And yet they're making viable political runs. Evidently, the existence of the Constitution doesn't prevent a candidate from espousing, say, banning entry to the country on the basis of religion, or revoking the right to privacy in the same basis. Are those democratic ideas? Yet, somehow, the existence of the Constitution hasn't prevented them from being viably put forth in the public arena... because our democracy doesn't work that way.
I've also seen you say _yourself_ that things that have happened under Obama's watch are unConstitutional (specifically, the Supreme Court's striking down the DoM Act). I don't agree with you; the Supreme Court didn't agree with you; the Obama administration didn't agree with you. But lots of people do. Lots of people also think Obamacare is unConstitutional, and lots don't. "What one can do" around the stipulations in the Constitution has _so much wiggle room_ that defining it is the whole damn job of one of our branches of government, and a big part of the others. So "the Constitution exists" is hardly a simple answer to any kind of question.
Regarding European and U.S. governments: uh, I'm not sure what question, or statement, you think you're addressing here?