Democracy vs Republics

[Schtank]

Hi everyone,

I'm a new member and this is my first post. So congrats me I guess? Haha.

But anyways, this issue has been bugging me for quite a while. But has anyone else noticed politicians increased focus on the classifying America as a democracy; and not as a republic. I don't know if I'm just splitting hairs here, and this is really a non-issue, but does it seem like the increased focus on democracy is part of the problem that we face today. Politicians seem to be forgetting that the constitution founded America as a republic; not a democracy. What are other peoples thoughts on the issue? I really can't decide if this is a big issue, or just kind of a pet peive of mind.

Thanks,

Schtank

[2046]

There are several articles at Capitalism Magazine specifically addressing this:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4080

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=165

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3709

[gags]

Politicians seem to be forgetting that the constitution founded America as a republic; not a democracy. What are other peoples thoughts on the issue? I really can't decide if this is a big issue, or just kind of a pet peive of mind.

This is definitely a big issue, whether most people recognize it as one or not. In its pure form, a democracy means that 51% of the cannibals can vote to eat the other 49%. That is increasingly what we have right here in America.

[Schtank]

Thanks for the input guys; the articles you posted were just what I was looking for.

Thanks

[whYNOT]

Yeah, the word Republic has a very proud ring to it.

Was there any reason for not naming your country the 'Republic of the United States of America'?

I've often wondered.

[2046]

Yeah, the word Republic has a very proud ring to it.

Was there any reason for not naming your country the 'Republic of the United States of America'?

I've often wondered.

It didn't start out as a Republic, it started as a Confederation. The country was already named the United States of America before there was debate for making every state in the union a Republican form of government.

[TheAllotrope]

I think a more appropriate title would have been "the United Republics of America". Constitutionally, every State is required to be a republic.

One of the great tragedies of modern American political thought is that the US is one country, when we are (if we pay the Constitution due respect) 50 countries under a military and economic alliance.

[Maarten]

I think a more appropriate title would have been "the United Republics of America". Constitutionally, every State is required to be a republic.

One of the great tragedies of modern American political thought is that the US is one country, when we are (if we pay the Constitution due respect) 50 countries under a military and economic alliance.

I think it would mostly be a military alliance, actually. Ideally there wouldn't be any trade barriers anyway because there is no rational reason for there to be ones. The only sense it would be an economic alliance then would be that all states agreed not to regulate trade at all.

[PatriotResistance]

Glad you brought it up. This issue has fairly possessed me for the past ninth months or so. I have accumulated a plethora of notes, half-finished books, quote and websites on the subject. Someday I hope to distill it all into a logical progression of ideas to support my conclusion: The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy.

Here's a very quick objective summary of the issues (IMO):

- The original definition of republic was only that the head of state was not a monarch.

- The original definition of democracy was rule by the people, which meant rule of the majority.

- The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to the states, though is says nothing about the federal government.

- James Madison defined 'republic' in the federalist papers as deriving it's powers from the people with representatives who serve limited terms.

- James Madison defined 'democracy' as a small number of citizens who administer the government directly.

- The founding fathers spoke very clearly against democracy. The word 'democracy' is not used at all in any of the founding documents'.

- A key component of the U.S. Constitution is that it created a government of 'laws' and not of 'men', rule of law - which is in opposition to 'rule of majority'.

- Much of the federalist and anti-federalist papers discuss the suitability of one form of government or another based on the size of the population, and conclude that a republic would be best.

- It's also interesting and important, I think, to note that the definition of democracy today very often includes the right of suffrage for all people. While, hold on to your hats, the U.S. Constitution does not grant anyone the right to vote.

Here are two pages from a book which argues that the U.S. is today a democracy or a democratic republic: Democracy vs Republic

Note that they avoid using the language of majority rule but instead refer to 'direct democracy'. This subterfuge allows them to include a host of semi-collectivist ideals into the definition of democracy while still claiming that it is consistent with the constitution.

I had an email discussion with a Ph.D. a couple months ago who was attempting to convince me that the U.S. was a democracy. After several exchanges he made a point about the changing definition of the word democracy. To which I replied if the definition keeps changing why don't we stick to what the founding fathers defined and created - a Republic? He never replied.

Edited September 13, 2009 by PatriotResistance

[PatriotResistance]

I think a more appropriate title would have been "the United Republics of America". Constitutionally, every State is required to be a republic.

One of the great tragedies of modern American political thought is that the US is one country, when we are (if we pay the Constitution due respect) 50 countries under a military and economic alliance.

Yes. This is why the 17th amendment (changed federal senators elected by state rep's to being elected by the people) was one of the destructive elements that helped to created the 'supreme' federal government we suffer under today. Repeal of the 17th amendment and states exerting their rights or authority over the federal government are what is needed today.

[Maximus]

Yes. This is why the 17th amendment (changed federal senators elected by state rep's to being elected by the people) was one of the destructive elements that helped to created the 'supreme' federal government we suffer under today. Repeal of the 17th amendment and states exerting their rights or authority over the federal government are what is needed today.

Yes, I have been saying this for years. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states against the federal government. The House is supposed to be the Peoples representatives.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Right now if the Federal government tries to run rampant over the states, the ONLY tool they have to fight back with is to call for a new constitutional convention. Before, they had the US Senate as well.

[PatriotResistance]

Right now if the Federal government tries to run rampant over the states, the ONLY tool they have to fight back with is to call for a new constitutional convention. Before, they had the US Senate as well.

Actually, a few states are trying to assert their rights with Texas and Montana leading the charge. If it goes anywhere.......well, we can hope.

National States Rights Movement

Montana fires a warning shot

Montana states rights

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I suppose there is always the chance that someone on the supreme court will actually read and apply the ninth amendment.

*crickets chirping*

[TheAllotrope]

I suppose there is always the chance that someone on the supreme court will actually read and apply the ninth amendment.

*crickets chirping*

Or the Tenth.

[gags]

This is how most modern politicians view the Constitution:

"Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3406386548.html