Why Is The KKK Currently Legal?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

As repugnant and vile as the KKK's views and rhetoric have proven to be, I would not want to live in a country where the people believe its government should have the right to silence a particular group or person as it sees fit. Such a policy would no doubt lead to political oppression in the name of banning offensive speech.

I think that was the ideology surrounding the creation of the first amendment. And I agree with your statement wholeheartedly.

 

[Whiskey16]

The word you are searching for is, representative, and not:

...so we need a republic style rule to work "best". If we had politicians who weren't so selfish, it would be a great system.

:sneaky:....Silly yank, the opening of your post was on the right track, then you went to the crapper... I, won't hold it against ya, as I figure that you're a product of rather sad educational system that moronically conflates republicanism with that of representative government...

Let's have a little more in depth schooling:

Too often the USA has this dogmatic belief of the infallibility for its founding fathers. They most certainly are not irreproachable scholars of absolute truths. As any, they were fallible men, and sadly, errors of their words any way have taken on a theological absoluteness in the USA. On this point of the USA uniquely conflating republicanism with democratically representative legislators (as opposed non-representative direct/pure democracy), a great point of this erroneously linguistic ignorance can be placed at the feet of James Madison.

Any government and legislating bodies composed of democratically elected representatives is not some special uniquely republican system, and thereby discounting the other constitutionally representative democracies in the world being as such despite not being republics (ceremonial (or not) heads of states that are unelected).

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy)[1] is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.

The distinction between governance by elected representatives as opposed to governance by public plebiscites.

Where may be the origins of the uniquely US sourcing of such errors in defining and recognising republicanism as an absolute conflation with that legislatures of elected representatives?

The USA has a uniquely ignorant and colloquial application for a republic. Why is that? How did such a 'novel' (crudely put, STUPID) meaning of the term come to be and remain for only some in the USA? Examine this Wikipedia's entry's sub-section upon republicanism in the USA:

United States[edit]

Main article: Republicanism in the United States
A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance, a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[44] Also, there is evidence that contemporaries of Madison considered the meaning of the word to reflect the definition found elsewhere, as is the case with a quotation of Benjamin Franklin taken from the notes of James McHenry. Where the question is put forth, "a Republic or a Monarchy?"[45]

The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic.
However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [46]

Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.[47] Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the classical liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe.

A political philosophy of republicanism that formed during the Renaissance period, and initiated by Machiavelli, was thought to have had little impact on the founders of the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s a revisionist school[citation needed] led by the likes of Bernard Bailyn began to argue that republicanism was just as or even more important than liberalism in the creation of the United States.[48] This issue is still much disputed and scholars like Isaac Kramnick completely reject this view.[49]

Unfortunately, the USA has a common ignorant tendency raise its lofty founding fathers upon a pedestal and thereby make their words and instructions as infallible dogma. James Madison's continued confusing and still standing repeated erroneous instruction of defining republicanism is wrong. Bradley, you are wrong. Take heed of the more worldly and linguistically correct Benjamin Franklin who recognised the distinction for republicanism for what its core remains to be:

...a quotation of Benjamin Franklin taken from the notes of James McHenry. Where the question is put forth, "a Republic or a Monarchy?"[45]

That's the correct crux of it. Not some silly and uniquely US connoting fabrication that a constitutional republic negates the form of government being a direct democracy. No, a REPRESENTATIVE (rather than that separate word's conflation with a 'republic') government negates the governance being solely determined by direct democracy.

A republic (not having an unelected, rather an appointed head of state/monarch) may certainly have a governance by elected representatives, direct democracy, and any combination of the two. Republicanism most certainly does not and cannot discount the involvement of direct democracy. Madison was wrong. His continuing disciples, as fostered by a broken US educational system, remain wrong.....


.... On topic, yanks learn your history rather than spouting falsely absolute and dogmatic idealisms. Get an honest and perspective grasp.

I would not want to live in a country where the people believe its government should have the right to silence a particular group or person as it sees fit.

Then find another country... Daesh not your thing, either? Freedom of speech and all that, eh?

The KKK has certainly been past federally defined as a terrorist organisation and thereby banned. Freedom for speech and freedom of association have rational limits when they venture into the realms of violence and hatred:

End of first Klan

Although Forrest boasted that the Klan was a nationwide organization of 550,000 men and that he could muster 40,000 Klansmen within five days' notice, as a secret or "invisible" group, it had no membership rosters, no chapters, and no local officers. It was difficult for observers to judge its actual membership.[66] It had created a sensation by the dramatic nature of its masked forays and because of its many murders.

In 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization".[67] It issued hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism. Klan members were prosecuted, and many fled from areas that were under federal government jurisdiction, particularly in South Carolina.[68] Many people not formally inducted into the Klan had used the Klan's costume for anonymity, to hide their identities when carrying out acts of violence. Forrest called for the Klan to disband in 1869, arguing that the Klan was "being perverted from its original honorable and patriotic purposes, becoming injurious instead of subservient to the public peace".

..

Today, many sources classify the Klan as a "subversive or terrorist organization".[27][28][29][30] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant.[31] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.

 

[Greenman]

The word you are searching for is, representative, and not::sneaky:....Silly yank, the opening of your post was on the right track, then you went to the crapper... I, won't hold it against ya, as I figure that you're a product of rather sad educational system that moronically conflates republicanism with that of representative government...

I think he meant a constitutional republic or constitutional democracy. The idea being that the constitution places limits on what the government/people can do.

 

[Chaotic0ne]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean people have the right to not be offended.

 

[smackababy]

bunch of words, arguing a point never made

When did I say anything about the US government? I said a republic works "best", except all people, by nature, are selfish and are more interested in their own wellness when it conflicts with the country.

 

[Whiskey16]

When did I say anything about the US government? I said a republic works "best", except all people, by nature, are selfish and are more interested in their own wellness when it conflicts with the country.

Short term memory failure? I directly quoted you.... Here ya go, again:

A pure democracy is about as close to having a true representation of what the "people" want. Unfortunately, a true democracy simply won't exist. People are too complacent to actually vote or research issues, so we need a republic style rule to work "best". If we had politicians who weren't so selfish, it would be a great system.

The thread concerns the USA, and you went into notions of the jurisdiction's governance...

smackababy, that's how discourse works. You may not have desired my post ("bunch of words, arguing a point never made" as an imbecile such as yourself described) to go as it did, but you, not myself, directed the discussion into that course.

Yet your notions were so laughably conflated that you earned a post in a history lesson and correcting citations...

smackababy, you're so silly in rehashing what is so commonly mis-taught in the US educational system that you even think of representative democracy to be some sort of lesser system than "pure" democracy. There is no such thing as the latter, as you ought to have referred to direct democracy.

There are many forms of a democratic state and of governance.

A massive failing of the USA and a strong lesson for others not to repeat is of practicing the tyranny of the majority of enabled voters to directly (pure democracy in your colloquial speak, smackababy ) select members of the judicial and law enforcement. As much of the USA's history demonstrated, this enables local fiefdoms to selectively choose which constitutional or higher laws to recognise and thereby illegally (on paper)disenfranchise marginalised segments of the population -- even of populations that may outnumber the ruling class.

Such employment of this perverted type of overly active US democracy was what long enabled the likes of the Klu Klux Klan and its supporters to terrorise and remain in a bigoted and supremacist position of power. Law agencies, courts, through to municipal and state governments protected and used the membership of and wider sympathies for such terrorist hate groups. Only a certain type of person would be permitted to vote and they would do what they could to keep to retain power and put the marginalised down. To your county's great shame, it tardily took federal authorities with the full recognised application of the US constitution to forcibly make just change.

What ought not be lost on current affairs was that during that specific time in USA history the terrorising racists chose to rebirth and rally around the supremacist and racially bigoted sourced Confederate flag (the basic design such as the white border to symbolise white rule), as a strong show of rebellion force against the intruding federal government. State governments went as far as to follow the direction of the Klan and return such a flag to public prominence for the sole purpose of white racial supremacy. Hell, similar contemporary supremacist bigots have just continued that sordid rebel history to rally with that racist flag against President Obama.

 

[Whiskey16]

I think he meant a constitutional republic or constitutional democracy. The idea being that the constitution places limits on what the government/people can do.

Ahhhh, are you not neglecting Magna Charta? That was most certainly known to the likes of Madison:

In 1764, the Massachusetts politician James Otis, Jr., said that,

When the parliament shall think fit to allow the colonists a representation in the house of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies, will be as clear as their power is at present of doing it without, if they please...But if it was thought hard that charter privileges should be taken away by act of parliament, is it not much harder to be in part, or in whole, disfranchised of rights, that have been always thought inherent to a British subject, namely, to be free from all taxes, but what he consents to in person, or by his representative? This right, if it could be traced no higher than Magna Charta, is part of the common law, part of a British subjects birthright, and as inherent and perpetual, as the duty of allegiance; both which have been brought to these colonies, and have been hitherto held sacred and inviolable, and I hope and trust ever will. It is humbly conceived, that the British colonists (except only the conquered, if any) are, by Magna Charta, as well entitled to have a voice in their taxes, as the subjects within the realm. Are we not as really deprived of that right, by the parliament assessing us before we are represented in the house of commons, as if the King should do it by his prerogative? Can it be said with any colour of truth or justice, that we are represented in parliament?

—James Otis, Rights of British Colonies Asserted
​

Constitutions most certainly already long did and still do limit the powers of many forms of government. It most certainly is a not some republican uniqueness.

I live in a constitutional monarchy that is a representative democracy.

You are in a constitutional republic that is also a representative democracy.

A very simple breakdown for a compare and contrast.

Madison and his disciples remain in error for the belief that a republic defines only a certain type of democracy -- representative. No, a republic only denotes the lack of an unelected head of state -- monarch, dictator, power wielding or a figurehead.. This terminology and notion goes back to Rome and possibly even Greece before... The British republican civil war (ironically briefly ended the monarchy with practicing dictator holding power over the on-paper-only yet intended democratic republic) ought to have been well known to the likes of Madison and yet he blew it. Franklin and others were evidently better versed in the long defined reality of political language.

The basis of a republic has no bearing upon the type of democracy practiced as direct, representative, or anything in between. A disagreement with that latter reality is a US fabricated common parlance only, and one that is quite incorrect and sourced to Madison's error.

 

[IGBT]

because they are a huge part of the Democrat Party History.

 

[nickqt]

because they are a huge part of the Democrat Party History.

You're right!

The KKK is a huge part of the Democrat (sic) party history.

And it's a huge part of the Republican party of today.

BothSidesDoIt™

 

[IGBT]

You're right!

The KKK is a huge part of the Democrat (sic) party history.

And it's a huge part of the Republican party of today.

BothSidesDoIt™

the racial segregationists of today are squarely in the DNC.

 

[nickqt]

the racial segregationists of today are squarely in the DNC.

6/10

You can do better than that. Come on now.