Freedom, Democracy, and the Republic

[buddhist]

So?

Just explain that America is a democratic republic, not a direct democracy.

Now you are confusing yourself with you desire to prove America is not a democracy.

Laws don't appear out of thin air in a final and unalterable form.

It's not even a democratic republic.

 

[buddhist]

Ha ha....
One of those self evident truths was "all men are created equal". It was written by and for rich white male slavers.
The country has changed a great deal since the 18th century.
Tom

It's still a foundational, organic law for the several united States, and has not been amended or revoked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree because the people are under cosmic laws that transcend even the will of the people. Even if 100% of the population agrees that "murder is right" and codify it into law, it would still go against cosmic law. That's why the Declaration of Independence states "hold these truths to be self-evident ..."

You have your own special definitions for the words "republic" and "democracy" because of "cosmic law"?

Sorry - I don't follow you at all.

 

[Augustus]

You have your own special definitions for the words "republic" and "democracy" because of "cosmic law"?

Well that escalated quickly...

 

[ShivaFan]

Freedom, Democracy and the Republic 2016. Louisiana just voted yesterday to give John Kennedy (Republican Orange) the victory in the U.S. Senate by 4 point margin, expanding the GOP majority.

Translate: Now let's CELEBRATE by impeaching IRS Commissioner John Koskinen for crimes against Americans and investigate foreign Iranian influence over Obama policy.

 

[Curious George]

The definitions are in both the old & current law dictionaries

democracy, n. Government by the people, either directly or through representatives elected by the people. Cf. REPUBLIC.--Democratic, adj.

Black's Law Dictionary Deluxe 9th Edition, "democracy" p. 497 (2009).

 

[Augustus]

It's not even a democratic republic.

So it is an undemocratic republic like North Korea?

 

[buddhist]

Black's Law Dictionary Deluxe 9th Edition, "democracy" p. 497 (2009).

What about it? Do you understand that "cf" means "compare 'Republic' and 'Democracy'"? and, that "cf" does not mean "republic is a synonym for democracy"?

 

[buddhist]

So it is an undemocratic republic like North Korea?

It is simply a Republic according to our organic law: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" Const IV.4

also, cf:

"... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths ... A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking ... great points of difference between a democracy and a republic ..." Federalist Paper 10

 

[Augustus]

It is simply a Republic according to our organic law: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" Const IV.4

also, cf:

"... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths ... A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking ... great points of difference between a democracy and a republic ..." Federalist Paper 10

You missed out the qualifying statement before that:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual...

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union. Federalist Paper 10

As I mentioned earlier, he is specifically talking about pure democracy - direct Athenian democracy. There would be not need for the qualifier 'pure' if democracy didn't have a broader meaning.

His definition for Republic is that of a representative democracy, as contrasted with a pure democracy. There is no reason that a republic, in general, needs to be democratic, so when you say it is 'not a democratic republic' you are wrong. This is implicit in the definition given by Madison.

Also, the congress, as the constitution states is chosen by the people and has 'all legislate powers':

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

"All legislative powers" come form the people via elected representatives, not 'organic law'. This is a democracy today, just as it was when the (very clearly democratic) Republic was founded.

 

[buddhist]

You missed out the qualifying statement before that:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual...

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union. Federalist Paper 10

As I mentioned earlier, he is specifically talking about pure democracy - direct Athenian democracy. There would be not need for the qualifier 'pure' if democracy didn't have a broader meaning.

His definition for Republic is that of a representative democracy, as contrasted with a pure democracy. There is no reason that a republic, in general, needs to be democratic, so when you say it is 'not a democratic republic' you are wrong. This is implicit in the definition given by Madison.

Also, the congress, as the constitution states is chosen by the people and has 'all legislate powers':

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

"All legislative powers" come form the people via elected representatives, not 'organic law'. This is a democracy today, just as it was when the (very clearly democratic) Republic was founded.

Ultimately it is a Republic, where the Law is King (as Thomas Paine put it), and this is what I'm focusing on. The Constitution itself gives the final word, that it is a Republic.

I don't deny that under this Republic we see - in practice - administration in different forms, such as oligarchial, democratic, etc. However, in many ways, it might be far more accurate to say the U.S. has become an oligarchial Republic.

 

[Curious George]

What about it? Do you understand that "cf" means "compare 'Republic' and 'Democracy'"? and, that "cf" does not mean "republic is a synonym for democracy"?

Yes, I understand the annotation Cf. I simply thought you only needed the legal definition of democracy. But, if you would like republic to which you can contrast:

republic, n. A system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who exercise that power. * It contrasts on the one hand with a pure democracy, in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign power of the government, and on the other with the rule of one person (such as a king or dictator) or of an elite group (such as an oligarchy, aristocracy, or junta).-- Abbr. rep. Cf. DEMOCRACY.-- republican, adj.

"A republic is a government which (a) derives all of its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people and (b) is administered by persons holding their office during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior." Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory 10 (1956).

​

​

Black's Law Dictionary Deluxe 9th Ed. "republic" p 1418, (2009).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is simply a Republic according to our organic law: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" Const IV.4

That's right: the US isn't a monarchy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The several united States are Republics, governments which are (supposedly) ruled by Law. Not Democracies, which is rule by mob (majority).

Why do so many people conflate the two terms (Republic & Democracy)? Or, do they perhaps falsely identify the word "Democracy" with "Freedom"?

We are a Democratic Republic. It involves democracy but it isn't a direct democracy.

A direct democracy is where everyone votes on every issue. Its a bit like a tribe or something that every time a decision needs to be made they would gather everyone around the campfire and vote. However with such a large scale country and complex system we need actual government leaders and officals. So we democratically elect our representatives to rule for us. We then can democratically elect someone else when their time is up if they don't fulfil our desirse. At least that was what was intended.

The president is the only non-democraticly elected offical we have in government. I disagree with this personally but its how it is currently.

We are still a democracy but we are not a direct democracy.

 

[buddhist]

We are a Democratic Republic. It involves democracy but it isn't a direct democracy.

A direct democracy is where everyone votes on every issue. Its a bit like a tribe or something that every time a decision needs to be made they would gather everyone around the campfire and vote. However with such a large scale country and complex system we need actual government leaders and officals. So we democratically elect our representatives to rule for us. We then can democratically elect someone else when their time is up if they don't fulfil our desirse. At least that was what was intended.

The president is the only non-democraticly elected offical we have in government. I disagree with this personally but its how it is currently.

We are still a democracy but we are not a direct democracy.

I am simply concerned with the final word, which is "Republic", where the Law rules the People.

Adding "democratic" as a qualifier to "Republic" seems to confuse many more than it informs, in my experience. As it stands, the majority of people I encounter thus seem to falsely believe this is a Democracy, and from the way they describe it to me, they also equate that word with "Freedom".

In any case, it's rarely democratic at all. A great portion of the regulations governing citizens actually come from unelected administrators in various executive-branch agencies who enact policies to rule over their subjects among the territories of the United States. In this sense, I would argue that if you do feel pressed to use a qualifier, the term "oligarchial Republic" might be far more accurate instead.

 

[dust1n]

Ah yes... the endless semantic rabbit holes...

Every country runs on various themes of "democracy" and "republicanism," and has governments that are set up and operate slightly differently... but generally, I think people refer to democracy is used pretty loosely to refer to any country that involves, like, any form of (legitimate) voting and civic participation, as opposed to ones that doesn't grant that to people it would supposedly call citizens.

 

[Koldo]

I am simply concerned with the final word, which is "Republic", where the Law rules the People.

Adding "democratic" as a qualifier to "Republic" seems to confuse many more than it informs, in my experience. As it stands, the majority of people I encounter thus seem to falsely believe this is a Democracy, and from the way they describe it to me, they also equate that word with "Freedom".

In any case, it's rarely democratic at all. A great portion of the regulations governing citizens actually come from unelected administrators in various executive-branch agencies who enact policies to rule over their subjects among the territories of the United States. In this sense, I would argue that if you do feel pressed to use a qualifier, the term "oligarchial Republic" might be far more accurate instead.

You can even amend the constitution if you have an overwhelming majority. How is that not democratic ?

The unelected administrators have elected administrators as their bosses.

 

[buddhist]

You can even amend the constitution if you have an overwhelming majority. How is that not democratic ?

All of your processes described are restrained and ordered by law, as is done in a Republican form of government. The people can't just vote and the Constitution instantly changes, as could be done under a Democratic form of government.

The unelected administrators have elected administrators as their bosses.

As I see it, most of the time, the unelected oligarchs are given free reign and are very rarely restrained.

 

[Koldo]

All of your processes described are restrained and ordered by law, as is done in a Republican form of government. The people can't just vote and the Constitution instantly changes, as could be done under a Democratic form of government.

Where did you gather this notion that being able to instantly change the constitution is a requirement for a democratic form of government ?

As I see it, most of the time, the unelected oligarchs are given free reign and are very rarely restrained.

Which is irrelevant.

 

[buddhist]

Where did you gather this notion that being able to instantly change the constitution is a requirement for a democratic form of government ?

Which is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant.

Democracy means, in essence, the will of the majority of the people. If it's not the will of the people, but is instead restrained by law, then it's a Republic.