Is socialism compatible with the United States Constitution?
Can you come to the United States and start a socialistic enterprise, a workers' cooperative or equal-share partnership, say?Absolutely. We are free after all to run our affairs as we see fit.Can you implement socialistic government in the United States?Absolutely not. We are free after all to run our affairs as we see fit.That is guaranteed by, appropriately enough, the Guarantee Clause of the US Constitution--Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1:"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"And so, we are guaranteed a republican form of government at both the federal and state levels, but where does it say what a republican form of government actually is? The Constitution doesn't say. The answer is to be found in The Federalist Papers and the many other writings by our founding fathers. Republicanism in the United States.But we did it to the extreme unlike any republican government before or since--all citizens equal under the law and collectively sovereign. Popular sovereignty is inconsistent with any form of socialism. Natural and legal rights are likewise antithetical to socialism.Perhaps the biggest drop-dead issue is the structure of government. Republicanism requires robust private and civil sectors in which citizens pursue their own aims backed by a public sphere limited to Enumerated powers. Socialism, like monarchism, depends on a robust and sovereign public sphere overseeing rump private and civil sectors in which people have limited scope of action.We thereby have a bulwark against socialist incursion in the US... or do we? In a republican form of government, education should be what the people make it operating in the private and civil sectors. Instead, we long ago turned education into state indoctrination in the public sector with disastrous results both in general and in terms of our sense of republicanism. We do not even allow our school children to practice their rights and freedoms. We've also been steadily moving health care to the public sector, another move antithetical to republicanism but in accord with socialism.We either need to get serious again about republican government or not be surprised to wake up some day soon and see the most powerful guarantee ever made to any people on the planet lying trampled in the dust.
Why do we need a constitution?
costitution is the sacred book of a democracy. constitution is what guides the democracy in its day today funtioning. constitution is the travel itenary of a country. constituion can be written or unwritten as in case of india and UK respectiverly. the importance of constitution is summed up as fllows;-basic rules- its has the basic rule on which the democracy functions. it guides in funtioning of a democracyrights- it defines the right of a citizen over state and other personsduties- it determines the duty of the state and also the duty of the individual vis a vis the country.directives- it contains the directives to the government to make lawdetermines the territory of state and country- the constitution limits the territory of the whole country and the states.citizenship- it determines the various provisions for gaining and losing citizenship of the country.centre and states relations- constitution determines the legislatie judicial, executive relations between centre and states.constitutional posts- it mentions power functions of president vis a vis PM and council of ministers at centre and governor and state council of ministers at state level.it is the bulwark of rule of law in a country it gives the true color to right to equality, freedom and liberty.it mentions the separation of power between union and the states. though india doesnt have watertight separation of power as in US.it makes sure to check and balance power of one organ over the other.it defines whether the democracy is direct or indirect and if it is indirect then whether it is presidential or parliamentary system.role of constitutioon is multifarous and the need and functions of constitution keeps on changing with time. constitution is a living document as it can be amended with time. constitution provides the required motion to the chariot of the democracy.BR ambedkar has said after he drafted the constitution that if the constitution is misused in any way he will be the first one to burn it.
Liberalism? Conservative? What do these really mean?
Wow...good job! Pretty much sums it up and yeah...prepare to be attacked with namecalling. I'm sure they are on their way!
Why did democracy fail in Russia?
There are two main reasons for the fail of Western-style democracy in the modern Russia. Both happened in the 90s.First one was Constitutional crisis of the 1993 in which impasse state between elected Russian parliament and elected Russian president was resolved by using lethal force against Parliament and essentially dissolving it as a legislative body. It established a very strong presidential republic in Russia and made further parliaments rather hesitant in opposing presidential decisions.Second event was Presidential elections of the 1996. Yeltsin was deeply unpopular by the end of his first term but his only real opposition were communists, so newly-born Russian business elite (with extensive Western financial backing) brought the full might of the modern mass media against Yeltsin’s opponents. Americans experienced something similar (but far less one-sided) in their last presidential elections when almost everything was allowed to prevent the opponent from winning. But in Russia’96 case Yeltsin’s opponent - communist party leader Zyuganov - never had a resources to counter the media campaign against him. So deeply unpopular Yeltsin swinged back in people’s favor in a mere months. At least it was reported as that.Then elections happened and Yeltsin won in the second round by bribing the third most popular candidate promising him position in the future government. Validity of this election remains questionable to this day but back then West didn’t acquire a habit of pointing out how corrupt Russian elections were. Their candidate won, so it is all good and no one really cared about democracy and what Russian people actually wanted.And of course all people who wanted to protest against these elections had example of the Parliament House of 1993 before their eyes.This is how Western-style democracy in Russia died. Legislative branch was ‘castrated’. Media was put under tight control of the oligarchs friendly to the government and elections became a farce with the predetermined result. In a sense all this late Western histeria about state of the Russian democracy, human rights, elections and stuff came 20 years too late. Which of course made Russian people think that it all was a show from the beginning.