Democracy vs. Republic
I typed this up in response to the Democracy thread in GD, but it was poofed during the typing. It remains applicable, I believe, but probably better suited to Politics.
Article 4, Section 4, Constitution of the United States of America:
'The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...'
Today we are being lead to believe by leftist politicians and anti-Federalists that this statement can be dismissed through semantics.
It cannot be.
To suggest that the founders did not understand the profound differences between a republic and a democracy is idiocy and ignorance. Republic vs. democracy is more than suffrage, it is structure.
A republican form of government is not only a representative form, but it is a bounded form of government. Governing bodies while they may be formed by the popular vote, are not unlimited under our structure in how they can legislate. Democratic institutions can impose the will of the majority upon the minority as has been pointed out, but a republican form, as inherently limited by the boundaries formed in its structure cannot.
More importantly however, when considering the Federal Government, is the inherently anti-democratic nature of two of its key institutions and by extension a third.
The Senate, for example, is one of the least democratic bodies in any voting country on the planet. Less than 1 million people in Montana have the same power in the Senate as do more than 20 million in California. Likewise the construct of the Electoral College, whereby these same less than 1 million people have 2 electors as to the 20 million based upon the same formula. Obviously this is tempered by the democratically appointed population based electors, but it does provide the boundary between republic and democracy that resulted in Cleveland, GWB, and Trump becoming President.
It is also important to note that in its original configuration, there was no requirement at all for a popular vote for POTUS and there was not a popular vote for the Senate. This is the extension we see to the judicial branch, whereby the founders constructed a mechanism in which those that were the final arbiters in the function of the Federal Government were appointed by and confirmed by individuals who were not directly elected by, nor even voted upon by the populace.
We have moved closer to a democratic form to be sure. Amendment 17 democratized the Senate. One also finds that it was not until Amendment 24, ratified in 1964 that any mention of a popular vote for POTUS in primary or other elections even existed.
Yes, we are a Republic. Originally a distinctly non-democratic republic, but a much more democratic republic today. Over the past 8 years, our President referenced many times the will of the majority. We have had recent SCOTUS decisions and dissents that referenced the same thing. These statements are obviously very democratic in nature, go against our republican founding, and are significant because of who made them. The danger with this thinking is not semantic as referenced initially and as was suggested the 'Democracy just ain't cutting it' thread. Rather it is how they seek to change the fundamental nature of that which bounds each of these distinctly different forms of government.
Article 4, Section 4, Constitution of the United States of America:
'The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...'
Today we are being lead to believe by leftist politicians and anti-Federalists that this statement can be dismissed through semantics.
It cannot be.
To suggest that the founders did not understand the profound differences between a republic and a democracy is idiocy and ignorance. Republic vs. democracy is more than suffrage, it is structure.
A republican form of government is not only a representative form, but it is a bounded form of government. Governing bodies while they may be formed by the popular vote, are not unlimited under our structure in how they can legislate. Democratic institutions can impose the will of the majority upon the minority as has been pointed out, but a republican form, as inherently limited by the boundaries formed in its structure cannot.
More importantly however, when considering the Federal Government, is the inherently anti-democratic nature of two of its key institutions and by extension a third.
The Senate, for example, is one of the least democratic bodies in any voting country on the planet. Less than 1 million people in Montana have the same power in the Senate as do more than 20 million in California. Likewise the construct of the Electoral College, whereby these same less than 1 million people have 2 electors as to the 20 million based upon the same formula. Obviously this is tempered by the democratically appointed population based electors, but it does provide the boundary between republic and democracy that resulted in Cleveland, GWB, and Trump becoming President.
It is also important to note that in its original configuration, there was no requirement at all for a popular vote for POTUS and there was not a popular vote for the Senate. This is the extension we see to the judicial branch, whereby the founders constructed a mechanism in which those that were the final arbiters in the function of the Federal Government were appointed by and confirmed by individuals who were not directly elected by, nor even voted upon by the populace.
We have moved closer to a democratic form to be sure. Amendment 17 democratized the Senate. One also finds that it was not until Amendment 24, ratified in 1964 that any mention of a popular vote for POTUS in primary or other elections even existed.
Yes, we are a Republic. Originally a distinctly non-democratic republic, but a much more democratic republic today. Over the past 8 years, our President referenced many times the will of the majority. We have had recent SCOTUS decisions and dissents that referenced the same thing. These statements are obviously very democratic in nature, go against our republican founding, and are significant because of who made them. The danger with this thinking is not semantic as referenced initially and as was suggested the 'Democracy just ain't cutting it' thread. Rather it is how they seek to change the fundamental nature of that which bounds each of these distinctly different forms of government.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Would the original intent of the constitution, therefore, be friendly to oligarchy ?
In outcome, yes, in formulation, no.
I do not pretend to know what precise definition was meant in choosing the word 'republican' in Article 4, but the turn generically suggests a representative government. If those being represented vote in a manner whereby an oligarchy results over time, it is obviously friendly to that result. It is not friendly to the establishment of a permanent oligarchy, as those that are being represented will retain the power to change those representatives.
Also the term oligarchy is typically used in in referenced to ruling a people vs. performing legislative functions on the behalf of the people. The boundaries placed upon government of all levels by our Constitution prevent the true application of the concept of ruling. A less significant point by application, but psychologically a very significant point when considering the relationship between government and the governed.0 -
Democracy = Mob Rule and the word MUST have modifiers to be used as a description of the U.S.
Republic = Mob Rule but they must get their representatives elected and when elected their power is then limited by the constitution.0 -
And the beat goes on,attacking free speech when you disagree with The Supreme Court for social engineering while The Senate and House can't balance the budget or find sustainable employment for we the people or even sound fiat money soon,just like in the chaos in Venezuelan today.
Then there is illegal migration that was allowed for humanitarian reasons that has taxed the system and infrastructure while giving the Liberals more political clout promising more social services for the illiterate over population from third world countries and we wonder why our system of government is failing!
Too many people demanding populating their race or clan from other countries because there leaders fail should not be our problem.
Let The United Nations decide that overpopulation should be curtailed in poorer countries and what rights they have and help them manage their own problems instead of importing them here. We are becoming what they are a failed state.
Borders are made for a reason to establish a set of finite numbers & resource and manage them.
serf0 -
What is the US?
John Adams said its a Representative Democracy; Jefferson, Webster, Geo Tucker agreed.
James Wilson one of the 1st SJ's(he also helped write the US Constitution) said three forms of government being the ?monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,? and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is ?inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.? John Marshall agreed with him
But we are also a Constitutional Democracy
I would say the US is a Constitutional Federal Representative Democracy...............................
But weather you call it a Democracy or a Republic I think you are both correct.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sam06
What is the US?
John Adams said its a Representative Democracy; Jefferson, Webster, Geo Tucker agreed.
James Wilson one of the 1st SJ's(he also helped write the US Constitution) said three forms of government being the ?monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,? and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is ?inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.? John Marshall agreed with him
But we are also a Constitutional Democracy
I would say the US is a Constitutional Federal Representative Democracy...............................
But weather you call it a Democracy or a Republic I think you are both correct.
They knew I was right all along, it just burns their asses.[:p]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sam06
What is the US?
John Adams said its a Representative Democracy; Jefferson, Webster, Geo Tucker agreed.
James Wilson one of the 1st SJ's(he also helped write the US Constitution) said three forms of government being the ?monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,? and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is ?inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.? John Marshall agreed with him
But we are also a Constitutional Democracy
I would say the US is a Constitutional Federal Representative Democracy...............................
But weather you call it a Democracy or a Republic I think you are both correct.
I suppose we can agree that we are a qualified Democracy of sorts. The definition, however, for our qualified Democracy, is Republic, and you are incorrect, IMO, to equate or conflate the terms.
The problem with using the term 'Democracy' when referring to the USA is that people do understand that the term means rule by the majority. We obviously do not have that, but are moving, disastrously, IMO, closer to that every decade. We saw the pushback against GWB and now Trump because many people believe we should be more of a democracy.
A Federal Government that operates as a democracy would reduce the importance of state borders to nothing more than lines on a map.
I that is what you want, we are a democracy. If you believe in the Republican notion of a Federation of States, we are a Republic.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments