NationStates Jolt Archive

The government most certainly has the right to take lives, otherwise police would not be allowed to kill criminals if necessary, to stop them...

The act of prosecution in a Republic is not the same as many other forms, since the Gov't is an arbitrator and representative of the people, it is not the Gov't convicting and putting said abberant criminal to death, it is the citizenry of the nation doing so. Hense why court cases generally in a republic are classified as "The People" vs. "John Doe"..... "The People" are prosecuting and sentencing through their representatives in Gov't, not the Gov't itself.

This is different then dictatorships, fascist groups, empires, monarchies, and many socialist nations, where it is "The Government" vs. "John Doe".

In effect this is not legislating against the Tekanian Gov't, it would be legislation against the citizenry of Tekania.

You have the facts wrong. Most states in America do not have a death penalty. Even if they do most criminals never have it carried out as one can tie up the legal system for years and years.

You have the facts wrong. Most states in America do not have a death penalty. Even if they do most criminals never have it carried out as one can tie up the legal system for years and years.

38 of the 50 US states (76%) have the death penalty.

The average time for on appeals spent is 10 years 10 months.

At present, the appeals process is legally binded to a 15 year limit.

Most criminals who are convicted, then sentenced to death have their penalty lessed, or their conviction overturned in appeals (indication that the system is working)(error correction).

In recent years, no one executed, was later found innocent.(another indication the system is working).

I do however advocate a unilateral boost in perfecting the court system to further remove errors at the initial trial.

Legal systems operate on fact, not supposition, suppositional arguments for removal of the DP are therefore legally invalid.

Trials are conducted by jury (unless a jury trial is waived by the defendant). Therefore it is not the government who pronounces the defendants sentense, but a panel of his own peers.

The Death Penalty in a republic is imposed by the people of the nation, on the people of the nation. It's a determination of the people, and therefore not-regulatable under U.N. law (this is an alien principle to people who do not understand a free-republic).

The stated purpose of this the proposal to begin with was flawed, and not applicable to Tekania's governmental form.

1. states ratify this UN Moratorium on an international and regional level.

Faulty, a republic is called by her own people, not the U.N. You've overstepped your authority and violated the rights of the people.

2. states which sentence to death persons who were juveniles at the time of the crime, end this blatant violation of the international law

Faulty, republics do not pronounce sentence, the citizens do in the form of the selected jury (unless otherwise waived by the accused).

3. The death penalty means the triumph of vengeance over justice and violates the first right of any human being, the right to life. Capital punishment has never prevented crime. It is an act of torture and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. A society that imposes the death penalty symbolically encourages violence. Every single society that respects the dignity of its people has to strive to abolish capital punishment.

Faulty, the purpose of justice it to carry out vengance, avenging the wronged at the penalty of the wrongdoer.

In the sentencing phase of a trial, family members of the victim are allowed to present statements to the record of the court. This allows family members to influence lieniency in the jury, and grant the convited some degree of mercy. This mercy can only be granted from the point of the victim or their family, no governing authority has the right or authority to pronounce mercy in a republic.

Concern for the impact of the punishment on the convict upon his family, is of no concern in matters of law, regardless of punishment. The impact is a causation of the convict, not the court... and therefore is the fault of the convict.

In the end, the proponents of a unilateral ban on the death penalty show forth several faults in policy.....
1. They wish to grant the government power that can only be the authority of the person.
2. They unilaterally take freedom from those that are wronged, and give it to those that have committed wrong.
3. Their philosophy is a violation of personal rights and liberties of the citizens of every free-republic.

Accordingly, this would be a violation of several standing international laws.....
"This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed. These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations." - Civil Rule Required.
"That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime." - Article 8, Of Definition of 'Fair Trial'.

We hereby find at personal fault, the governments of nationstates adovating this unilateral ban, as being in direct, and conclusive violation of International Law, in that...
1. They negate internationally mandated civil participation in free-republic member nations where the Death Penalty is imposed by the people.
2. They propose to pass leglislation, which in accordance with violating point 1, as well, forces free-republics whose citizens have imposed the Death Penalty in their law upon themselves, as proportional penalty to the crime of murder, to pass verdicts which are deemed disproportionate to the crime.

Be it herefore declared that All U.N. member nations which have been proponents in this issue, to immediately cease and desist your illegal and blatant violation of our people's rights to govern themselves, as protected under International Law.

The Federaton of Foyland has this opinion:

The human right of life cannot be outlawed. The principle of justice cannot therefore be over the human right of life, because that is a fundamental right. It is a strong violation of one person's right to life, and therefore the strong violation of human rights. Not any human right can be outlawed by the decision of the people.
The justice is here to carry out the punishment, but this punishment cannot violate the fundamental human rights, except the human right of free movement. The govermental opinion is, that the life sentence is also a punishment which is strong enough.

I'd like to add a few points I thought of while looking through here (sorry if someone's already mentioned them). Just because the death penalty won't be banned, doesn't mean that you have to bring it in if you don't want it, even if you did you don't actually have to conduct it in your nation.

And just so everyone's clear, I'm not voting on this resolution because the result probably won't matter to Ranamala anyway.

I'd like to add a few points I thought of while looking through here (sorry if someone's already mentioned them). Just because the death penalty won't be banned, doesn't mean that you have to bring it in if you don't want it, even if you did you don't actually have to conduct it in your nation.

And just so everyone's clear, I'm not voting on this resolution because the result probably won't matter to Ranamala anyway.

There might be some rehashing here but oh well.

The resolution states that capital punishment never stopped a crime and I'd like to say that putting people away for life doesn't stop a crime either. Capital punishment is a much cheaper alternative to detaining people in prison for high crimes. These high profile criminals don't deserve to live for free off the tax money of the other hard working, law abiding majority. Its not right for citizens to have to support convicted felons that bring nothing but negative contributions to society and taxpayers should not be compelled to do this. The resources spent on supporting these non-deserving malefactors could be put to productive use in more destitute areas. People only have the right to life if they respect the lives and laws of everyone else.

The Federaton of Foyland has this opinion:

The human right of life cannot be outlawed. The principle of justice cannot therefore be over the human right of life, because that is a fundamental right. It is a strong violation of one person's right to life, and therefore the strong violation of human rights. Not any human right can be outlawed by the decision of the people.
The justice is here to carry out the punishment, but this punishment cannot violate the fundamental human rights, except the human right of free movement. The govermental opinion is, that the life sentence is also a punishment which is strong enough.

The human right to life is not fundemental under International Law, based on precedent set by the Abortion Rights Resolution.

The principle of justice is that the punishment be in proportionment to the crime, also set forth in International Law.

The human right to life is not outlawed (except in the heinous Resolution Abortion Rights).... The Death Penalty is a voluntary penalty upon the convict, in the case of 1st degree murder or treason, he surrendered his right to life upon violating the right to life of another. When found by a proponderous of evidence to have commited such heinous acts, by an impartial jury of his own peers, he is convicted and sentenced his penalty by his peers, in accordance with the penalties the people have decided apply, including the convicts own life.

When a convict is executed for such heinous acts, it is a sad sad event, but the event is the fault of the convict, not the people, or the gov't. He is being held accountable, and made to pay with his life, for the life he took from another, willingly, planned, and premeditated upon.

We find the ideal, that convicted murders, to be shown mercy, where no mercy is deserved, and contrary to the will of the murdered person's family (who is the only one who can rightly forgive or show mercy)... to be a sickening and blatant attack upon victims rights and a disgusting display of lack of value of human life.... We find the idea to be an expression of belief that the life of the murder has more value then the life of the victims of the murderer.

When someone has sat down, thought about killing someone, determined to kill the other person, planned out how he will kill that person, and then actually kill them..... they no longer have a right to life...... Once determined, their life is surrendered by execution, unless the victims families wish to show mercy and appeal to the court for lieniency upon the convicted murderer.....

Life imprisonment is not proportional by the determination of the people of Tekania, and as the vote will show, the U.N. has considered this an issue best left to the people of Tekania, and all other nations to determine what it consideres proportional punishment in the Death Penalty for certain crimes.

Proponents, you've already lost.....

The U.N. has made their decision, by vote, and determined that my, and other nations use of the Death Penalty, is within our rights, and the rights of our people as such who have determined this penalty....

why kill to show that killing is wrong?

'nuff said.

why kill to show that killing is wrong?

'nuff said.

Because if it is shown that murder is repayed with death, then anyone who cares for thier own life will not commit murder for then their life would be forfeit. Any human that knowingly and willingly takes the life of another human being without extreme justification (such as in the deffense of their own life or the life of a third party) must be put to death.

Also the alternative punishment, life in prison, is the worst idea any man has ever thought in relation to justice systems. Giving a man who knowingly killed other persons a free bed and food for the rest of his life is foolish. It not only fails to punish the offender but also rewards him.

why kill to show that killing is wrong?

'nuff said. :arrow:

Giving a man who knowingly killed other persons a free bed and food for the rest of his life is foolish. It not only fails to punish the offender but also rewards him.

If you think imprisonment is a reward, go hold up a bank. Send me a letter from prison and tell me how much you love not having to pay for your food or your bed.

And as simple comparison of statistics will show, the death penalty has no deterrent effect on murder, and in fact generally nations with the death penalty have HIGHER homicide rates than those without.

why kill to show that killing is wrong?

'nuff said.

Logical falicy, operates on the principle that "killing is wrong".... Killing is not wrong, and is infact the only correct action in certain cases....

It's pronouncing Capital Punishment (punishment of the head, or sovereignty[ and hense rights]) upon the one convicted of a Capital Crime ( crime of the head, or sovereignty [ and hense rights] ).

The one convicted has their sovereignty removed by death, being a punishment in proportion of their crime, violating the sovereignty of another person, in all of their sovereign rights. It's their decapitation (removal of the head), which is no longer by beheading in most cases, but the same end effect by other forms of execution.

The use of corporal punishment, declared unilaterally by third parties, in place of Capital punishment, is an injustice and a violation of the sovereignty, and authority of the victim and/or the victims family.

Life imprisonment is not "Capital Punishment"... capital punishment is only executed in putting the convict to death..... Life Imprisonment is a form of "in-body" ie. CORPORAL punishment, and is disproporational to the Capital crime of the convict (and therefore against International Law.)

Captial Punishment is only executed upon those whose crime was capital in nature, and are therefore non-sovereigns....

Corporal Punishment is any form of penalty placed upon criminals who have commited corporal crimes against others, and therefore only upon sovereign persons.

killing people:
just one of the ways that a certain great nation amongst us denies basic human civilian rights.
while we are at it, we should outlaw litigation, and right-wing facist governments too.
i'll tell you a story about the electric chair - from 'Edison and the Electric Chair':
Thomas Edison, the man famed for the electric lightbulb, also was developmental in the first electric chairs. the chair was proposed as a safer, less accident-prone alternative to hanging, the standard penalty in th 1880s. the chair got into the system, and one of the first executions took upwards of 10 minutes. the burns recieved could be likened to being cooked alive. quick and painless it was not. the suggested remedy - salt water electrodes, to reduce burning. the next fellow got his hands boiled alive.
these sort of things are in line with the rack and the thumbscrew. admittedly we have lethal injections, but the principle of the matter is the same.
it is obvious that any government, real or virtual, that supports capital punishment, has little connection with its people.
and here you effers are, on a war against terrorism - and you still, like those people you condemn, think eye-for-an-eye is a good idea.
'an eye for an eye, and the whole world went blind' - wake up, effers.

The Death Penalty in a republic is imposed by the people of the nation, on the people of the nation. It's a determination of the people, and therefore not-regulatable under U.N. law (this is an alien principle to people who do not understand a free-republic).

Wrong. Republics are where the supreme power is held by elected representatives of the people. The people have only indirect say in the law.

Additionally, members of the judiciary are, in most nations, appointed without any direct input from the people at all, and this judiciary has the power to interpret law, which is actually very broad. I can think of several US Supreme Court decisions which show this. Roe vs. Wade, the controversial abortion case, remains a hot topic. And Bush vs. Gore, which stopped the recounts in the 2000 presidential election, is even clearer, when you consider that Gore won the popular overall vote by a margin of over half a million votes.

The stated purpose of this the proposal to begin with was flawed, and not applicable to Tekania's governmental form.

To suggest that you are exempt from international law because of your system of government is ludicrous and also suggests that you're on crack.

Faulty, a republic is called by her own people, not the U.N. You've overstepped your authority and violated the rights of the people.

No rights are being violated, only overruled, in accordance with "Rights and Duties of UN States" which clearly says that national sovereignity is subject to international law. And if any were, they would be those of government, not people.

That the people vote for government does not mean that the power is with the people. It only means that the people can have a choice in the composition of the government which holds the power.

Faulty, republics do not pronounce sentence, the citizens do in the form of the selected jury (unless otherwise waived by the accused).

Again, it's you who is wrong. In the United States, at least, the perspective of which I'm assuming you're speaking from, the jury decides guilt, and the judge (who is unelected) decides sentence.

Faulty, the purpose of justice it to carry out vengance, avenging the wronged at the penalty of the wrongdoer.

The purpose of justice is not to ensure vengeance. It is to ensure proper punishment

no governing authority has the right or authority to pronounce mercy in a republic.

Hmm, I remember very clearly that Governors of US states, and the President of the US both can pardon criminals in their jurisdiction.

2. They unilaterally take freedom from those that are wronged, and give it to those that have committed wrong.

I really don't see how banning the death penalty will negatively impact a murder victim. They're still dead.

3. Their philosophy is a violation of personal rights and liberties of the citizens of every free-republic.

If you're so sure of this authority, go outside, pick someone, kill him, and then say he was a murderer and you were exercising your democratic authority and liberty. I'd like to see you try to explain THAT to a judge, and you might even be supporting a ban on the death penalty once your trial's over.

"That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime." - Article 8, Of Definition of 'Fair Trial'.

The Civil Rule Required resolution does not make democratic system of government mandatory (which would really be a violation of sovereignity, not to mention game mechanics), it just requires Saddam Hussein to hold elections, and we all know how those turned out. What was his winning margin, 99%? 100%?

And using your interpretation of Fair Trial would require us to introduce eye-for-an-eye punishment and force UN members to have the death penalty. That's even more outrageous in terms of national sovereignity than trying to ban it, and I'd like to see you try.

1. They negate internationally mandated civil participation in free-republic member nations where the Death Penalty is imposed by the people.

Once again, the people do not impose the death penalty, the government does, and just because the government is elected doesn't mean that the people make the laws. And this answers your point 2 too, the citizens do not impose the death penalty on themselves. Therein lies a limitation of the people's power in a republic.

Put it this way, if you wanted to change the United States into a communism by election, you couldn't, because there's no Communist candidate to vote for. (Yes, people do vote for the Communist Party, in India, "the world's largest democracy", there are in fact two conflicting Communist parties)

Be it herefore declared that All U.N. member nations which have been proponents in this issue, to immediately cease and desist your illegal and blatant violation of our people's rights to govern themselves, as protected under International Law.

After all your conservative radicalism, it's strange to find you're an anarchist.

Oh, where to begin, where to begin... It's obvious Kelssek has no clue how a free-republic operates.

Wrong. Republics are where the supreme power is held by elected representatives of the people. The people have only indirect say in the law.

Wrong, they are representatives of the people, but they don't hold supreme power.... they hold power in accordance as they have been granted by the people.


Additionally, members of the judiciary are, in most nations, appointed without any direct input from the people at all, and this judiciary has the power to interpret law, which is actually very broad. I can think of several US Supreme Court decisions which show this. Roe vs. Wade, the controversial abortion case, remains a hot topic. And Bush vs. Gore, which stopped the recounts in the 2000 presidential election, is even clearer, when you consider that Gore won the popular overall vote by a margin of over half a million votes.

Jury, and Judiciary are two different concept, the Judiciary is to arbitrate, the Jury is selected randomly from the citizenry, and selected through a process of examination by the Prosecution and Defense to insure they have no knowledge or bias in the case.

I might add that "popular" vote does not apply in a Union. Most of the outcry about all that was primarily due to the relative ignorance of the U.S's liberal population as to how the U.S. really works. Overall nationwide popular vote only partially factors into elections of the President of the Federal Government. Checks and ballences in determination were written into the constitution for the purpose of preventing more populous states from gaining power over less populous states. The U.S. Federal Government is a republic representing the Several States, each State represents their own respective people. It's a two-tiered republic. Bush won more states than Gore.... And that has more weightier effects then the mere popular vote. Note the two U.S. legislative houses.... The House of Representatives (composition based on population of each state) and the higher Senate ( composition set to make all states equal ). And the supreme courts arbitration of the election is a set item, granted them by the people.


No rights are being violated, only overruled, in accordance with "Rights and Duties of UN States" which clearly says that national sovereignity is subject to international law. And if any were, they would be those of government, not people.

I'm not reffering to governmental sovereignty, I'm reffering to personal sovereignty of the people (the citizenry are the ultimate sovereigns of every nation, even if their gov't does not recognize as so).


That the people vote for government does not mean that the power is with the people. It only means that the people can have a choice in the composition of the government which holds the power.

Government in and of itself only exists by the will of the people, it's existance and form is ultimately determined by the people, free-Republics recognize this, and it's factual and true regardless of the form, and whether the people realize it or not.


Again, it's you who is wrong. In the United States, at least, the perspective of which I'm assuming you're speaking from, the jury decides guilt, and the judge (who is unelected) decides sentence.

The Judge does not decide sentence in the U.S. the sentence is decided by the Jury and handed to the Judge for approval, it formally pronounced into record by the Jury, and then lastly by the Judge, who then signs the court transcript.... Jury reaches it's conclusion for sentencing during deliberation, after deliberating on guilt.


The purpose of justice is not to ensure vengeance. It is to ensure proper punishment

vengeance, "infliction of punishment for wrongs comitted"

I really hope, for the sake of the school system you were taught in, that English is not your natural language.


I really don't see how banning the death penalty will negatively impact a murder victim. They're still dead.

It's a violation of the value placed upon the sovereignty of the victim (their rights).


If you're so sure of this authority, go outside, pick someone, kill him, and then say he was a murderer and you were exercising your democratic authority and liberty. I'd like to see you try to explain THAT to a judge, and you might even be supporting a ban on the death penalty once your trial's over.

That would be a violation of another sovereignty, and as such, I would be surrendering my own authority, and subject to the Death Penalty. (Difference between me and you, I believe in personal accountability, and personal responsiblity.... you are irresponsible, and a good example of why the modern world is so screwed up.)


The Civil Rule Required resolution does not make democratic system of government mandatory (which would really be a violation of sovereignity, not to mention game mechanics), it just requires Saddam Hussein to hold elections, and we all know how those turned out. What was his winning margin, 99%? 100%?

Yes, and no... we have citizen participation at all levels (principle of a free-Republic).... And as such, our rights to do so are protected by this resolution.


And using your interpretation of Fair Trial would require us to introduce eye-for-an-eye punishment and force UN members to have the death penalty. That's even more outrageous in terms of national sovereignity than trying to ban it, and I'd like to see you try.

I am not arbitrating the decisions of a seperate and independant sovereignty outside of our own, you are... My interpretation follows suite in line with the sovereign will of the people.


Once again, the people do not impose the death penalty, the government does, and just because the government is elected doesn't mean that the people make the laws. And this answers your point 2 too, the citizens do not impose the death penalty on themselves. Therein lies a limitation of the people's power in a republic.

Incorrect, the people do so in a free-Republic. As stated before, representatives are their to arbitrate and legislate the will of the people. Not to rule over them. (You sound more and more like a dictator every day).


Put it this way, if you wanted to change the United States into a communism by election, you couldn't, because there's no Communist candidate to vote for. (Yes, people do vote for the Communist Party, in India, "the world's largest democracy", there are in fact two conflicting Communist parties)

Changing the U.S. into communism is a direct alteration of not just economy and policy, but the form of government itself..... It would operate through the other intended effects presented in the Constitution, not election... mainly revolution.


After all your conservative radicalism, it's strange to find you're an anarchist.

by definition all pure democracies, and republics are anarchies..... if you're not an anarchy, then you subscibe to rulership at other levels (Oligarchy, Monarchy, etc.) 'Conservatives' (at least in the U.S.) are inherantly anarchial, advocating smaller, less intrusive government. Liberals (at least in the U.S.) want to see power confined into an massive, ever-present central government, and are more Oligarchial.

If you wish to contend this point, I might ask you to look at the U.S. constitution, the very first declatory sentence... and please tell me who has granted any power whatsoever that the U.S. Government has. You'll find the statement in the first three words of the document, as a matter of fact.....

Only a few other "nut-cases" have held the same views I do, ones like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry... and a whole slew of other names that I won't mention right now.

Oh, where to begin, where to begin... It's obvious Kelssek has no clue how a free-republic operates.

Wrong. Republics are where the supreme power is held by elected representatives of the people. The people have only indirect say in the law.

Wrong, they are representatives of the people, but they don't hold supreme power.... they hold power in accordance as they have been granted by the people.


Additionally, members of the judiciary are, in most nations, appointed without any direct input from the people at all, and this judiciary has the power to interpret law, which is actually very broad. I can think of several US Supreme Court decisions which show this. Roe vs. Wade, the controversial abortion case, remains a hot topic. And Bush vs. Gore, which stopped the recounts in the 2000 presidential election, is even clearer, when you consider that Gore won the popular overall vote by a margin of over half a million votes.

Jury, and Judiciary are two different concept, the Judiciary is to arbitrate, the Jury is selected randomly from the citizenry, and selected through a process of examination by the Prosecution and Defense to insure they have no knowledge or bias in the case.

I might add that "popular" vote does not apply in a Union. Most of the outcry about all that was primarily due to the relative ignorance of the U.S's liberal population as to how the U.S. really works. Overall nationwide popular vote only partially factors into elections of the President of the Federal Government. Checks and ballences in determination were written into the constitution for the purpose of preventing more populous states from gaining power over less populous states. The U.S. Federal Government is a republic representing the Several States, each State represents their own respective people. It's a two-tiered republic. Bush won more states than Gore.... And that has more weightier effects then the mere popular vote. Note the two U.S. legislative houses.... The House of Representatives (composition based on population of each state) and the higher Senate ( composition set to make all states equal ). And the supreme courts arbitration of the election is a set item, granted them by the people.


No rights are being violated, only overruled, in accordance with "Rights and Duties of UN States" which clearly says that national sovereignity is subject to international law. And if any were, they would be those of government, not people.

I'm not reffering to governmental sovereignty, I'm reffering to personal sovereignty of the people (the citizenry are the ultimate sovereigns of every nation, even if their gov't does not recognize as so).


That the people vote for government does not mean that the power is with the people. It only means that the people can have a choice in the composition of the government which holds the power.

Government in and of itself only exists by the will of the people, it's existance and form is ultimately determined by the people, free-Republics recognize this, and it's factual and true regardless of the form, and whether the people realize it or not.


Again, it's you who is wrong. In the United States, at least, the perspective of which I'm assuming you're speaking from, the jury decides guilt, and the judge (who is unelected) decides sentence.

The Judge does not decide sentence in the U.S. the sentence is decided by the Jury and handed to the Judge for approval, it formally pronounced into record by the Jury, and then lastly by the Judge, who then signs the court transcript.... Jury reaches it's conclusion for sentencing during deliberation, after deliberating on guilt.


The purpose of justice is not to ensure vengeance. It is to ensure proper punishment

vengeance, "infliction of punishment for wrongs comitted"

I really hope, for the sake of the school system you were taught in, that English is not your natural language.


I really don't see how banning the death penalty will negatively impact a murder victim. They're still dead.

It's a violation of the value placed upon the sovereignty of the victim (their rights).


If you're so sure of this authority, go outside, pick someone, kill him, and then say he was a murderer and you were exercising your democratic authority and liberty. I'd like to see you try to explain THAT to a judge, and you might even be supporting a ban on the death penalty once your trial's over.

That would be a violation of another sovereignty, and as such, I would be surrendering my own authority, and subject to the Death Penalty. (Difference between me and you, I believe in personal accountability, and personal responsiblity.... you are irresponsible, and a good example of why the modern world is so screwed up.)


The Civil Rule Required resolution does not make democratic system of government mandatory (which would really be a violation of sovereignity, not to mention game mechanics), it just requires Saddam Hussein to hold elections, and we all know how those turned out. What was his winning margin, 99%? 100%?

Yes, and no... we have citizen participation at all levels (principle of a free-Republic).... And as such, our rights to do so are protected by this resolution.


And using your interpretation of Fair Trial would require us to introduce eye-for-an-eye punishment and force UN members to have the death penalty. That's even more outrageous in terms of national sovereignity than trying to ban it, and I'd like to see you try.

I am not arbitrating the decisions of a seperate and independant sovereignty outside of our own, you are... My interpretation follows suite in line with the sovereign will of the people.


Once again, the people do not impose the death penalty, the government does, and just because the government is elected doesn't mean that the people make the laws. And this answers your point 2 too, the citizens do not impose the death penalty on themselves. Therein lies a limitation of the people's power in a republic.

Incorrect, the people do so in a free-Republic. As stated before, representatives are their to arbitrate and legislate the will of the people. Not to rule over them. (You sound more and more like a dictator every day).


Put it this way, if you wanted to change the United States into a communism by election, you couldn't, because there's no Communist candidate to vote for. (Yes, people do vote for the Communist Party, in India, "the world's largest democracy", there are in fact two conflicting Communist parties)

Changing the U.S. into communism is a direct alteration of not just economy and policy, but the form of government itself..... It would operate through the other intended effects presented in the Constitution, not election... mainly revolution.


After all your conservative radicalism, it's strange to find you're an anarchist.

by definition all pure democracies, and republics are anarchies..... if you're not an anarchy, then you subscibe to rulership at other levels (Oligarchy, Monarchy, etc.) 'Conservatives' (at least in the U.S.) are inherantly anarchial, advocating smaller, less intrusive government. Liberals (at least in the U.S.) want to see power confined into an massive, ever-present central government, and are more Oligarchial.

If you wish to contend this point, I might ask you to look at the U.S. constitution, the very first declatory sentence... and please tell me who has granted any power whatsoever that the U.S. Government has. You'll find the statement in the first three words of the document, as a matter of fact.....

Only a few other "nut-cases" have held the same views I do, ones like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry... and a whole slew of other names that I won't mention right now.

Oh, where to begin, where to begin... It's obvious Kelssek has no clue how a free-republic operates.

Wrong. Republics are where the supreme power is held by elected representatives of the people. The people have only indirect say in the law.

Wrong, they are representatives of the people, but they don't hold supreme power.... they hold power in accordance as they have been granted by the people.


Additionally, members of the judiciary are, in most nations, appointed without any direct input from the people at all, and this judiciary has the power to interpret law, which is actually very broad. I can think of several US Supreme Court decisions which show this. Roe vs. Wade, the controversial abortion case, remains a hot topic. And Bush vs. Gore, which stopped the recounts in the 2000 presidential election, is even clearer, when you consider that Gore won the popular overall vote by a margin of over half a million votes.

Jury, and Judiciary are two different concept, the Judiciary is to arbitrate, the Jury is selected randomly from the citizenry, and selected through a process of examination by the Prosecution and Defense to insure they have no knowledge or bias in the case.

I might add that "popular" vote does not apply in a Union. Most of the outcry about all that was primarily due to the relative ignorance of the U.S's liberal population as to how the U.S. really works. Overall nationwide popular vote only partially factors into elections of the President of the Federal Government. Checks and ballences in determination were written into the constitution for the purpose of preventing more populous states from gaining power over less populous states. The U.S. Federal Government is a republic representing the Several States, each State represents their own respective people. It's a two-tiered republic. Bush won more states than Gore.... And that has more weightier effects then the mere popular vote. Note the two U.S. legislative houses.... The House of Representatives (composition based on population of each state) and the higher Senate ( composition set to make all states equal ). And the supreme courts arbitration of the election is a set item, granted them by the people.


No rights are being violated, only overruled, in accordance with "Rights and Duties of UN States" which clearly says that national sovereignity is subject to international law. And if any were, they would be those of government, not people.

I'm not reffering to governmental sovereignty, I'm reffering to personal sovereignty of the people (the citizenry are the ultimate sovereigns of every nation, even if their gov't does not recognize as so).


That the people vote for government does not mean that the power is with the people. It only means that the people can have a choice in the composition of the government which holds the power.

Government in and of itself only exists by the will of the people, it's existance and form is ultimately determined by the people, free-Republics recognize this, and it's factual and true regardless of the form, and whether the people realize it or not.


Again, it's you who is wrong. In the United States, at least, the perspective of which I'm assuming you're speaking from, the jury decides guilt, and the judge (who is unelected) decides sentence.

The Judge does not decide sentence in the U.S. the sentence is decided by the Jury and handed to the Judge for approval, it formally pronounced into record by the Jury, and then lastly by the Judge, who then signs the court transcript.... Jury reaches it's conclusion for sentencing during deliberation, after deliberating on guilt.


The purpose of justice is not to ensure vengeance. It is to ensure proper punishment

vengeance, "infliction of punishment for wrongs comitted"

I really hope, for the sake of the school system you were taught in, that English is not your natural language.


I really don't see how banning the death penalty will negatively impact a murder victim. They're still dead.

It's a violation of the value placed upon the sovereignty of the victim (their rights).


If you're so sure of this authority, go outside, pick someone, kill him, and then say he was a murderer and you were exercising your democratic authority and liberty. I'd like to see you try to explain THAT to a judge, and you might even be supporting a ban on the death penalty once your trial's over.

That would be a violation of another sovereignty, and as such, I would be surrendering my own authority, and subject to the Death Penalty. (Difference between me and you, I believe in personal accountability, and personal responsiblity.... you are irresponsible, and a good example of why the modern world is so screwed up.)


The Civil Rule Required resolution does not make democratic system of government mandatory (which would really be a violation of sovereignity, not to mention game mechanics), it just requires Saddam Hussein to hold elections, and we all know how those turned out. What was his winning margin, 99%? 100%?

Yes, and no... we have citizen participation at all levels (principle of a free-Republic).... And as such, our rights to do so are protected by this resolution.


And using your interpretation of Fair Trial would require us to introduce eye-for-an-eye punishment and force UN members to have the death penalty. That's even more outrageous in terms of national sovereignity than trying to ban it, and I'd like to see you try.

I am not arbitrating the decisions of a seperate and independant sovereignty outside of our own, you are... My interpretation follows suite in line with the sovereign will of the people.


Once again, the people do not impose the death penalty, the government does, and just because the government is elected doesn't mean that the people make the laws. And this answers your point 2 too, the citizens do not impose the death penalty on themselves. Therein lies a limitation of the people's power in a republic.

Incorrect, the people do so in a free-Republic. As stated before, representatives are their to arbitrate and legislate the will of the people. Not to rule over them. (You sound more and more like a dictator every day).


Put it this way, if you wanted to change the United States into a communism by election, you couldn't, because there's no Communist candidate to vote for. (Yes, people do vote for the Communist Party, in India, "the world's largest democracy", there are in fact two conflicting Communist parties)

Changing the U.S. into communism is a direct alteration of not just economy and policy, but the form of government itself..... It would operate through the other intended effects presented in the Constitution, not election... mainly revolution.


After all your conservative radicalism, it's strange to find you're an anarchist.

by definition all pure democracies, and republics are anarchies..... if you're not an anarchy, then you subscibe to rulership at other levels (Oligarchy, Monarchy, etc.) 'Conservatives' (at least in the U.S.) are inherantly anarchial, advocating smaller, less intrusive government. Liberals (at least in the U.S.) want to see power confined into an massive, ever-present central government, and are more Oligarchial.

If you wish to contend this point, I might ask you to look at the U.S. constitution, the very first declatory sentence... and please tell me who has granted any power whatsoever that the U.S. Government has. You'll find the statement in the first three words of the document, as a matter of fact.....

Only a few other "nut-cases" have held the same views I do, ones like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry... and a whole slew of other names that I won't mention right now.

you're all talking about human rights, which is fair enough. But the USA's liberty paper thing says that everybody has the right to freedom. true. Freedom of speech, sexuality, religion. True.

Somebody breaks the law, they get put in jail. Punishment. Locked up. NOT free. so if the human rights arugement is to stand, surely you can't lock people up, as this is a violation of the basic right of freedom. Prisoners are NOT free.

Pain is temporary. personally i was smacked as a child if i was bad. Now i dont do anything overly bad. Dont drink, dont do drugs, not racist, etc. so in some instances, physical punishment works. I do NOT think that capital punishment should be allowed. If a criminal is killed, he cannot regret his actions. I am also NOT saying this is right, but would it not be much easier to just torture criminals for a few hours and release them. They will think twice about commiting another offence.

If i stole a car, and got my fingernails ripped off, i would link car theft with fingernail ripping off in my head, thereby deterring me from stealing another car.

This is just my humble opinion, enjoy.

Schwarzchild supports the ban on the death penalty. There are many logical reasons to take this position. While our nation would not presume to dictate to other sovereign nations, we feel it is important that this resolution be passed. Schwarzchild, even as a small nation will not do business with other nations that sanction capital punishment as a means of "crime prevention." evidence of the Death Penalty having a significant effect as a deterrent is either outdated, anecdotal, or in most cases...nonexistent.

Crime is a social aberration and should be treated as such. While there are no guarantees that rehabilitation is 100% effective, using the death penalty as a punishment virtually guarantees that some (albeit small) percentage of innocent people will be executed. Schwarzchild does not believe one innocent life is worth the execution of a truly guilty murderer.

The death penalty is state sanctioned, revenge-taking and thus murder. Even the crime of High Treason is only punishable by permanent banishment from Schwarzchild, along with the stripping of citizenship and all rights and privileges associated with being a citizen of Schwarzchild.

Finally, it is the opinion of Schwarzchild that murder only begets murder. We will not serve as an agent of revenge for a family, it simply is poor policy to sanction killing as a punishment for a crime.

We urge our colleagues in the UN to support the Ban of the Death Penalty and while such a ban may not be legally binding upon sovereign nations, we feel it is a necessary statement of civility among the national community. As for Schwarzchild, we will simply let our deeds reflect our arguments here today.

Jeff Cisneros
Prime Minister of Schwarzchild

Tekania, how grand a violation of ones sovereignity is needed to behead the culprit? Do you agree that it is subjective, that people differ in their tolerance of violation, or do you believe their is an objective level?
i e i hate commercials, especially ones with scantly clad women, and i feel that my personal space have been invaded every time i am forced to behold such imagery. If my subjective opinion about the degree of violation for capital punishment was the rule, every person in any form of marketing sector would hang from their neck until they´d dance no more, because they have violated my sovereignity to such a degree that it has been removed, at least that is what i believe, and the only proper punishment is death (and as the victim i would like to choose hanging, not in the way that the neck is broken but by the way that you slowly choke, defacating and ejaculating during the dance macabre, thats the only rehabilition of my wounded sovereignity that i can accept, and if you have problems with that then you are violating my sovereignity and should hang till your eyes pop out).

And as simple comparison of statistics will show, the death penalty has no deterrent effect on murder, and in fact generally nations with the death penalty have HIGHER homicide rates than those without.

Thats possibly true but capital punishment isn't the reason why they have higher homocide rates so I don't get what your post has to with anything. You also have take into consideration poverty levels, the population, culture, economy and the way its run in that country, and cultural diffusion.

(OOC: Sorry if any of this has already been posted, only read first 8-9 pages)

The CMFP is against the death penalty. To quote a hero of our lands:
"Some who live deserve death. Some who die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgment."
Gandalf Greyhame, in The Fellowship of the Ring by JRR Tolkien.

Another quote, this one from Star Wars:
"Nobody deserves death, no matter what their crimes."
Bastila Shan, in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

For the first quote, Gandalf had responded to Frodo telling him that Bilbo should have killed Gollum when he had the chance. And, to go on into later in The Lord of the Rings, Gollum was instrumental to the destruction of the Ring. The criminal you kill with the death penalty may come to prevent many crimes.

For the second quote, Bastila had saved the life of Darth Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith. For those who don't know, the Jedi (Of which Bastila was one) and the Sith were the greatest of foes. Darth Revan had murdered millions, and countless Jedi, and yet, in the end (on light side path), saved the galaxy.

But I admit, rehabilitation will not always be possible. In Gollum's case, it was only because he tripped that the Ring was destroyed. He tried to take it back for himself, and nearly murdered Frodo and Sam in doing that. With Revan, on the dark side path, (s)he rampaged and in the end ruled the galaxy as the Dark Lord.

Not all can be rehbilitated. That is what life in prison without parole is. And also, for prisoners who commited truly heinous crimes, other prisoners will kill them. Many prisoners in the CMFP (OOC: and the USA) who have sexually abused children are killed by prisoners with children. Rapists are killed by prisoners who have been raped.

So, with these arguments, you can see why capital punishment should be outlawed.

Thank you for reading this

Prime Minister of the Constitutional Monarchy of Free Pennsylvania
New Philadelphia
CMFP

P.S.: On a religious point, Yeshua bNazaret benYoseh benDavid (Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, son of David in Hebrew) said "You have heard it said to you, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. . .when someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn and offer him the other. If a man takes your robe, offer him your shirt as well."

It is the belief of Snidelia that all decisions are and must be subject to arbitrariness. All effects, circumstances and other things related to such decisions must also be recognized for what they are: arbitrary. When I (or anyone) speak against or for the death penalty, that vote is arbitrary. The people of Snidelia will not engage in such petty mysticism as practised by too many people in this forum of opinions. There is no people, and there certainly is no will of such imaginary people. The "people" is mumbo-jumbo, and the will of the people is abrakadabra and rabbit out of the hat. These are the facts we base our culture on. Judge them and know that your judgment is arbitrary, for it cannot be otherwise.

To Murder innocent peoples is a cruel act , something more than a black crime.

Snake Eaters, a new face around here, voted against the current resolution. Rehabilitation is more effective in the long term then simply commiting what is essentially murder itself

The Dominion of Thanes, in anticipation of the current proposal's failure, plans to declare June 28th, National Execution Day. On this day, all major criminals will be executed during halftime shows at sports arenas around the nation. Mock executions will be held of antagonist foreign leaders in effigy, and minor criminals will be flogged in public then placed into stockades, where they will be subject to public mockery (tomatoes will be provided) much to the delight of children and adults alike. As a precaution, the Dominion of Thanes has prepared all prison wardens to commence executing all criminals immediately should it appear that the resolution shall pass.

Whilest i find myself agreeing with many of the points made by supporters of this resolution i must with regret vote against it. This decision was made primarily on economic and geographical grounds. The bottom line is Prisons require Space and Funding and there is only so much to go around. I would rather allocate prison space to someone who will serve their time and return to society hopefully rehabilitated than to someone who is likely to spend the rest of their natural life locked up for henious crimes. Also as our nation is located in an orbital space platform we do not have the extra construction space required for the additional penitentiaries this resolution would require. What construction space we have must be reserved for those of our citizens who can make a meaningful contribution to our society.

In a perfect world this resolution would have my support. Its just a shame we dont live in one.

P.S.: On a religious point, Yeshua bNazaret benYoseh benDavid (Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, son of David in Hebrew) said "You have heard it said to you, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. . .when someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn and offer him the other. If a man takes your robe, offer him your shirt as well."

:shock: YOU MISINTERPRET THAT PASSAGE. TRY MATTHEW 5:17: JESUS SAID " DONT MISUNDERSTAND WHY I HAVE COME - IT IS NOT TO CANCEL THE LAWS OF MOSES...NO, I CAME TO FULFIL THEM... :!:

P.S.: On a religious point, Yeshua bNazaret benYoseh benDavid (Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, son of David in Hebrew) said "You have heard it said to you, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. . .when someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn and offer him the other. If a man takes your robe, offer him your shirt as well."

:shock: YOU MISINTERPRET THAT PASSAGE. TRY MATTHEW 5:17: JESUS SAID " DONT MISUNDERSTAND WHY I HAVE COME - IT IS NOT TO CANCEL THE LAWS OF MOSES...NO, I CAME TO FULFIL THEM... :!:

And if a man takes your life, offer him... what? The only thing you'd have left would be... your "immortal soul"? :roll: And then, when you decide to bring it out of the context of every-day life, the Golden Rule and all the stuff in the Bible and everywhere becomes adhockery.

Tekania, how grand a violation of ones sovereignity is needed to behead the culprit? Do you agree that it is subjective, that people differ in their tolerance of violation, or do you believe their is an objective level?
i e i hate commercials, especially ones with scantly clad women, and i feel that my personal space have been invaded every time i am forced to behold such imagery. If my subjective opinion about the degree of violation for capital punishment was the rule, every person in any form of marketing sector would hang from their neck until they´d dance no more, because they have violated my sovereignity to such a degree that it has been removed, at least that is what i believe, and the only proper punishment is death (and as the victim i would like to choose hanging, not in the way that the neck is broken but by the way that you slowly choke, defacating and ejaculating during the dance macabre, thats the only rehabilition of my wounded sovereignity that i can accept, and if you have problems with that then you are violating my sovereignity and should hang till your eyes pop out).


Capital Punishment is enacted against Capital offenses... which means the sovereignty of one would need to be destroyed, for the penalty of your sovereignty to be removed.

To state this in more detail, murder is the only nominal crime which fits this view. Sovereignty is set about in the three inalienable rights of the person, life, liberty, and persuit of happiness. Theft only temporarily removes one's persuit of happiness, kidnapping only temporarily removes one's liberty and persuit of happiness, hearing things you don't like only temporarily removes your persuit of happiness. None of these are capital in nature. Murder on the other hand, especially in the case of planned and premeditated, permanately revokes all three of the victims sovereign rights. and is therefore a capital offense, punishable by a capital form of punishment. Their life, liberty, and happiness stands in permanate forfiet.

I can't speak for other nations, but here, and in like minded places, restitution is paramount to justice, and criminals, even "rehabilitated" still stand in a place where they must recompense the victim. Failure to do so, results in more punishment for failing to restitute the loss. In murder it is impossible for the criminal to recompense, to restitute. His rehabilitation is pointless, as he can never be corrected.

Seeing as how persons are sovereign, accountability for violation of sovereignty against the will of the person, is held tantamount.

Three hefty words in a free-Republic, which shew forth the interataction between her sovereign citizens, culpablity, responsability, and accountability. Personal culpability of a sovereign dictates that when the person violates another, he must, in personal responsibility take on the accountability for their actions.

Recognizing the full truth of this, I am likely not to committ any crimes agaisnt another person, as I recognize my own responsibility to myself, and my fellow sovereign people. However, under the same line, If I were to violate, I would have to personally hold myself accountable for the actions and the penalty for the violation imposed by the others.

Proportionment is not a relative term, it is objective. Application as relative by those proponents of this failed resolution (as it is now gone), is their single faulty reasoned stance, seeing all things as relative with no true absolutes. A 1 kg lead weight is proportional to another 1 kg lead weight..... And execution of a murderer, is in proportion to their murder of the victim. A 500g lead weight is not proportional to a 1kg lead weight, and corporal punishment (as life imprisonment) is not proportional to the murder of the victim.

Let freedom loving nations rejoice. National sovereignity was preserved this day.

Last UN Decision

The resolution "Ban of Death Penalty" was defeated 9288 votes to 6957.

Gigatron,

Maybe you should not abandon your endeavors. Some U.N. nations do use captial punishment upon non-capital (corporal) offenses. Any maybe you should bend alittle and draft a proposal on this, limiting the scope of applied Capital Punishment in member nations. This would be a partial attaining of your end goals. I would certainly vote yes on that.

Some times you have to bend alittle. All-or-nothing will not work well in public policy, especially in a democratically controled system.

(Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not ultra-conservative.... I'm only relatively conservative in that I'm sitting in the plane, and not falling off the left wing-tip.... I'd be more closely akin to a conservative-libertarian.
[Hands Kelssek his parachute in case he looses his grip on the left-wing navigational light]).

Oh, where to begin, where to begin... It's obvious Kelssek has no clue how a free-republic operates.

Ah. A free-republic. As opposed to a normal republic, I'm assuming? If you fear for my English education, I fear for your Civics education.

What you appear to be talking about is called a direct democracy - the people have direct say in the laws, judiciary, etc. In a republic, the people have indirect power. They choose their government, and the government wields power, and tries to keep the people happy, with a view to keeping their jobs. But the people never have a direct say in the government decisions, only indirect, through petitions, lobbyists, "donations", public pressure, opinion polls, and the paper they put in the ballot box. That is a republic - POWER IS HELD BY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

Eck, I'm yelling already.

Wrong, they are representatives of the people, but they don't hold supreme power.... they hold power in accordance as they have been granted by the people.

Sigh...
republic - noun, (country with a) system of government in which supreme power is held not by a monarch but by the elected representatives of the people, with an elected President.

Also, while I have the dictionary out,

vengeance - noun, [U] ~ (on/upon sb) paying back of an injury one has suffered; revenge.

-Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary.

If you support revenge as part of the judicial system, then you're not centre-right, you're WAY right.

And the supreme courts arbitration of the election is a set item, granted them by the people.

I know how your Electoral College works, so don't worry about that, okay? In my opinion you guys are a little crazy to be electing your president like that, but it's your country after all.

Anyway, what I was trying to say with that example is, the judiciary, one of the branches of government, is undemocratic and may not always reflect the wishes of the people, because if it were, Gore would have won that court case. That is probably the only good example, though not a perfect one, I'll concede, of a judicial decision that went against a clear democratic vote.

I'm not reffering to governmental sovereignty, I'm reffering to personal sovereignty of the people (the citizenry are the ultimate sovereigns of every nation, even if their gov't does not recognize as so).

You still think that because you run your country democratically, you're exempt from international law, eh? Because it infringes on personal rights... I really don't know where you got that idea from, and if you came up with it yourself, you're crazier than I thought.

Personal "sovereignity" is not national sovereignity. People don't have sovereignity - they have rights, only nations, by which I mean governments, can have sovereignity. Just because the government represents the people (in a collective sense), does not mean the government has the same rights as a person, and international law does NOT INFRINGE ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Government in and of itself only exists by the will of the people, it's existance and form is ultimately determined by the people, free-Republics recognize this, and it's factual and true regardless of the form, and whether the people realize it or not.

That is EXACTLY THE POINT. The government and the people ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

The Judge does not decide sentence in the U.S. the sentence is decided by the Jury and handed to the Judge for approval, it formally pronounced into record by the Jury, and then lastly by the Judge, who then signs the court transcript.... Jury reaches it's conclusion for sentencing during deliberation, after deliberating on guilt.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/07BA0993-2B75-48E6-8AD65D205B6A39CE/catID/428413CA-3B6B-48E3-B69FDF80F4D8E95D

Right at the bottom.

"Jury deliberations. The jury (if it is a jury trial) deliberates and tries to reach a verdict. Most states require unanimous agreement, but Oregon and Louisiana allow convictions with only 10 of 12 votes."

"Sentencing. Assuming a conviction (a verdict of "guilty"), the judge either sentences the defendant on the spot, or sets sentencing for another day."

It's a violation of the value placed upon the sovereignty of the victim (their rights).

That's opinion, and I won't try to change it, because our values obviously disagree.

That would be a violation of another sovereignty, and as such, I would be surrendering my own authority, and subject to the Death Penalty. (Difference between me and you, I believe in personal accountability, and personal responsiblity.... you are irresponsible, and a good example of why the modern world is so screwed up.)

Personal attacks, I see. Because I believe that the death penalty is unnecessary and cruel, I'm an irresponsible derelict who is to blame for the state of the world.

Yes, and no... we have citizen participation at all levels (principle of a free-Republic).... And as such, our rights to do so are protected by this resolution.

That doesn't give you the right to say, "We run a democratic system of government with citizen participation on all levels, so international laws are restrictions on our people which violate their rights. Therefore international law is invalid and we refuse to follow it."

I am not arbitrating the decisions of a seperate and independant sovereignty outside of our own, you are...

I'm not arbitrating your decisions at all, and even if I were, that wouldn't be called arbitration, since the word implies the settling of a dispute of some kind. What does settling disputes have to do with pointing out a problem in your interpretation?

Incorrect, the people do so in a free-Republic. As stated before, representatives are their to arbitrate and legislate the will of the people. Not to rule over them. (You sound more and more like a dictator every day).

Okay, here's the thing. A republican government does, in fact, rule over the people. But because they hold power by the people's mandate, if enough people don't like what they're doing, come the next election they're out of a job. That is how it works - the government does what it wants, but if what the government wants is not what the majority of the voters want, out they go.

The people hold the government in check. Legislation would generally reflect the will of the people because the government wants to remain in power and to do that they have to retain the support of the majority of the people.

Changing the U.S. into communism is a direct alteration of not just economy and policy, but the form of government itself..... It would operate through the other intended effects presented in the Constitution, not election... mainly revolution.

You gotta take apart my analogies too? Geez. Okay, maybe that one was faulty, so I'll use a different one. Say you, as an ordinary member of the public, want a government that will put green food colouring in the tap water. You even get a majority of the country to agree that they want green water coming out of their taps. But if none of the politicans take up the cause, you won't get green tap water short of starting a political party yourself. That's the limitation of people-power in a republic.

Liberals (at least in the U.S.) want to see power confined into an massive, ever-present central government, and are more Oligarchial.

I'll remind you, though you probably don't need reminding since you keep parroting it, that the government reflects the will and power of the people. If something's going to reflect the democractic will of the people, I want it powerful and actively taking steps to make sure products are safe and people aren't destroying the environment, TO PROTECT ME. When you reduce government power in a republic, you reduce the people's power. Which is good, from the point of view of the people earning several million dollars a year who can not work for the rest of their life and still have oysters for dinner every night, but bad for the rest of us, and that includes you.

If you wish to contend this point, I might ask you to look at the U.S. constitution, the very first declatory sentence... and please tell me who has granted any power whatsoever that the U.S. Government has

This from someone so angry about me "imposing" the laws of my country on others...

Okay look, just because it says "We the people" doesn't make it so, because the direct power of governance is still with the government, not the people. Sounds good on paper, but in practice, nope, elected representatives do the governing.

The resolution "Ban of Death Penalty" was defeated 9288 votes to 6957.