Pro-Life Republican Pushes For Free Birth Control
Colorado Rep. Don Coram (R) knew his fellow Republicans wouldn #39;t be pleased with his decision to co-sponsor a bill to expand access to affordable IUDs among ...
By: Secular Talk
Original post:
Pro-Life Republican Pushes For Free Birth Control - Video
Missouri Republican Takes A Stand Against Corruption
A state lawmaker in Missouri has proposed an earth-shattering bill: The Missouri Anti-Corruption Act, which would put an end to unlimited gifts from lobbyist...
By: Secular Talk
Read the original here:
Missouri Republican Takes A Stand Against Corruption - Video
Republican Governor Cheerleads Tax Cuts That Destroyed His State
Sam Brownback, the Republican Governor of Kansas, cheerleads the tax cuts that have destroyed his state http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article8687693.html ...
By: David Pakman Show
Read the original post:
Republican Governor Cheerleads Tax Cuts That Destroyed His State - Video
A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people,[1] and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times, the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In the classical and medieval period of Europe, many states were fashioned on the Roman Republic, which referred to the governance of the city of Rome, between it having kings and emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism", is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius[3] and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.
Republics became more common in the Western world starting in the early 19th century, eventually displacing absolute monarchy as the most common form of government. In modern republics the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[4]
Most often a republic is a sovereign state, but there are also sub-sovereign state entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as 'republican' in nature. For instance, Article IV of the United States Constitution "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government".[5] Similarly, the Soviet Union was constitutionally described as a "federal multinational state", composed of 15 republics, two of which Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the United Nations.
The term originates as the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic (or similar terms in various western European languages).[citation needed]
The term politeia can be translated as form of government, polity, or regime, and is therefore not always a word for a specific type of regime as the modern word republic is. (One of Plato's major works on political science was titled Politeia and in English it is thus known as The Republic. However, apart from the title, in modern translations of The Republic, alternative translations of politeia are also used.[6]) However, in Book III of his Politics (1279a), Aristotle was apparently the first classical writer to state that the term politeia can be used to refer more specifically to one type of politeia: "When the citizens at large govern for the public good, it is called by the name common to all governments (to koinon onoma pasn tn politein), government (politeia)". And also amongst classical Latin, the term "republic" can be used in a general way to refer to any regime, or in a specific way to refer to governments which work for the public good.
In medieval Northern Italy, a number of city states had commune or signoria based governments. In the late Middle Ages, writers, such as Giovanni Villani, began writing about the nature of these states and the differences from other types of regime. They used terms such as libertas populi, a free people, to describe the states. The terminology changed in the 15th century as the renewed interest in the writings of Ancient Rome caused writers to prefer using classical terminology. To describe non-monarchical states writers, most importantly Leonardo Bruni, adopted the Latin phrase res publica.[7]
While Bruni and Machiavelli used the term to describe the states of Northern Italy, which were not monarchies, the term res publica has a set of interrelated meanings in the original Latin. The term can quite literally be translated as "public matter".[8] It was most often used by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the period of the Roman Empire.[9]
In subsequent centuries, the English word commonwealth came to be used as a translation of res publica, and its use in English was comparable to how the Romans used the term res publica.[10] Notably, during The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell the word commonwealth was the most common term to call the new monarchless state, but the word republic was also in common use.[11]
Presently, the term "republic" commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another basis, such as heredity or divine right. This remains the primary definition of republic in most contexts.
Congressional Republicans launched a drive Monday to repeal a recent National Labor Relations Board rule updating procedures for union representation elections, setting up a likely veto showdown with President Barack Obama.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said the GOP will employ a little-used law that permits the Senate to reject some federal agency regulations by majority vote and denies opponents the ability to thwart action through a filibuster.
Alexander said that by shortening the time between a union's request for representation and the actual balloting, the NLRB had cleared the way for a new type of "ambush election" to take place that will disadvantage businesses and workers alike.
In remarks on the Senate floor, he said that under previous rules, 95 percent of union elections take place in 56 days or less from the filing of a petition. He said that under the new proposal, that would be reduced to as few as 11 days, which he said could be before an employer understands what's happening.
In a written statement, NLRB chairman Mark G. Pearce countered that "both businesses and workers deserve a process that is effective, fair, and free of unnecessary delays, which is exactly what this rule strives to accomplish."
Mirroring divisions in Congress, NLRB rule-making is often politically charged, with Republicans taking the side of business while Democrats are aligned with unions. In the case of the rule approved in December, the labor board split 3-2 along party lines.
The rule, which has been cheered by organized labor, eliminates a previous 25-day waiting period and seeks to reduce litigation that can be used to stall elections. It also requires employers to furnish union organizers with email addresses and phone numbers of workers.
The NLRB rule is scheduled to take effect in April.
Alexander's announcement was fresh evidence of the Republicans' determination to use the power won in last fall's elections, when they captured a Senate majority and strengthened their grip on the House. Obama has already threatened to veto 11 bills.
Alexander said the vote to overturn the union election rule would take place under the Congressional Review Act, which limits debate and bars any changes in the repeal proposal. Obama may veto the measure, however, and it takes the customary two-thirds vote in each house of Congress to override him.
Continue reading here:
Republican-Controlled Congress to Vote to Repeal NLRB Rule