Are we a 'republic' or a 'democracy'?

[pgwenthold]

Ah, you must be an "activist judge". The majority should always get its way! Unless it's in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide, medical marijuana, or not giving pay raises to Congress. In those cases, thank heaven we have the Constitution to protect us from the tyranny of the masses.

I'll admit, I always found it funny that the exact same clowns who were hooting and hollering about "activist judges" subverting the will of the people tried to get a judge to overturn the Oregon marijuana referendum, supported by an overwhelming majority of the voters.

 

[Kerberos]

I think the only thing that really matters in this whole regard is that regardless of what you call it, we are NOT a nation where "majority rules."

From what I've seen, this question of "democracy" basically rears up when someone is trying to claim something should be law because the majority wants it. However, because of our constitution, there are restrictions on some of the things the majority can do, no matter how overwhelming the majority is.

In theory yes, in reality a sufficiently large, motivated and powerfull group can always get around the Constitution, either by electing a president who can appoint judges with the "correct" interpretation of the constitution or simply by ignoring it. A constitution can only stop a decision if the drice behind it isn't too powerfull, otherwise it can only slow it down, and sometimes not even that (WW2 and internment camps fx).

 

[clk]

P.S. I always thought it was funny how countries that's called something with people's or democratic never actually are democratic, or does anybody know any exeptions?

Dude, don't you know RULE 1 about naming countries? It says that the more opressive your country is, the more words such as "Democratic" and "Republic" you get to put in your name. For example, China is less opressive than North Korea, so they can call themselves "People's Republic of China", but it is absolutely illegal for them to call themselves the "Democratic People's Republic of China", because although they are opressive, they are not opressive enough to earn the title 'Democratic'.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Dude, don't you know RULE 1 about naming countries? It says that the more opressive your country is, the more words such as "Democratic" and "Republic" you get to put in your name.

So, I should cancel my vacation plans in the Happy Freedom Democratic Republic of Liberty and Peace?

I'll visit the Despotic Empire instead. It sounds charming.

 

[kalen]

I'm not quite sure that the US is a democracy because Jesse Jackson Jr. noted at the recent Congressional debate that "Americans do not have the explicit right to vote in their constitution."

LINK

 

[clk]

So, I should cancel my vacation plans in the Happy Freedom Democratic Republic of Liberty and Peace?

Yeah, you should cancel it, unless your idea of a vacation involves being disemboweled by cannibals.

I'll visit the Despotic Empire instead. It sounds charming.

I've heard that the weather there is awful during this time of year.

 

[swstephe]

This is interesting. Do you have a reference?

no online references. but the logic was:

adam - moses - theocratic dicatatorship
moses - joshua - theocratic dictatorship - with god-appointed monarchs
judges - theocratic dicatorship - with god-appointed judges
kings - god-appointed monarchy, (with theocratic direction)
etc ... monarchy when not slaves to some other country

... during the entire old testament, the "people" that might have formed a democracy were pictured as wicked and ungrateful and would have quickly overthrown god in favor of baal or ashteroth

new testament - theocratic socialism (especially the part where people were killed by the holy spirit for withholding some of their private property), although that may be just a local social structure with defference to roman rule - note that the figurehead theocratic rule of priests was condemned as corrupt

the point i was trying to make was that, if that pastor really read his own bible, he would realize that democracy was not biblical.

 

[Art Vandelay]

- a republic is a country where the leader is not a monarch.

Cite?

 

[swstephe]

Cite?

sure

a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

A form of government in which there is an elected president rather than a king.
pittsford.monroe.edu/jefferson/calfieri/government/Glossary.html

A republic is a nation or country where the head of state is generally elected and is not a hereditary monarch.

wwwtafe.lib.rmit.edu.au/localgov/313/glossary.html

A State, especially a democratic State, which has a non-hereditary head as (president) distinguished from a State like Britain which has a hereditary head (King or Queen) with limited powers, of course.
apella.ac-limoges.fr/lyc-perrier-tulle/europ/glossary/glossgalhist.htm

 

[Art Vandelay]

Those cites just say that republics aren't ruled by monarchs. They don't say that all countries not run by monarchs are republics.

 

[Iamme]

(swstephe)

- a democracy is a system of government where the people are the leaders, there are many variations.

-------------------------------------------------------

Do you know of any such government? Ever? This sounds like what I would percieve as "anarchy".

Has there truly ever been a country that is soley, directly run by it's citizens without representatives?

What are the 'variations' you speak of? Your description sounds sort of iron-clad. What could the variations be if the people are the leaders?

 

[Iamme]

(kalen)

I'm not quite sure that the US is a democracy because Jesse Jackson Jr. noted at the recent Congressional debate that "Americans do not have the explicit right to vote in their constitution."

---------------------------------------------

Neil Boortz (liberatarian national radio talk show host), coincidently, *after* my post, brought up the dremocracy/republic thingie, and argued with a caller. He *too* says we are not a democracy/that we are a republic. He then went into this rant that nowhere in the constitution does it give us a right to vote. He challenged anyone to find/read to him wherre it says we do.

 

[swstephe]

(swstephe)

- a democracy is a system of government where the people are the leaders, there are many variations.

-------------------------------------------------------

Do you know of any such government? Ever? This sounds like what I would percieve as "anarchy".

Has there truly ever been a country that is soley, directly run by it's citizens without representatives?

that is my point, probably very rare, or restricted to very small groups, "government" might be a stretch. the difference between such a government and anarchy is whether people could vote another person to do what they don't want to do or not. you might want to check into the entity known as "christiana", a socialist democracy in copenhagen denmark. you might even find a few communes in history that were true democracies.

What are the 'variations' you speak of? Your description sounds sort of iron-clad. What could the variations be if the people are the leaders?

check into the b-movie "zardoz" for a cool example of what a high-tech democracy might end up like.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not quite sure that the US is a democracy because Jesse Jackson Jr. noted at the recent Congressional debate that "Americans do not have the explicit right to vote in their constitution."

LINK

"Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore ruled, and I quote, 'the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for president of the United States.' "
Of course, because the president isn't chosen by individual citizens. Not very familiar with the Constitution, is he?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The reality is that we're a capitalistic monarchy. Only the wealthy can become president, and only if they are friendly with big business.

 

[pgwenthold]

"Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore ruled, and I quote, 'the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for president of the United States.' "
Of course, because the president isn't chosen by individual citizens.

Non sequitor. The quote says that the SC ruled that the citizen has no right to vote for ELECTORS.

You have a strawman here.

 

[shanek]

This has been argued already. I heard a pastor on TBN the other morning, during his sermon, say that we a democracy living in a republic. So, for the fun of it, I looked up the meaning of both in my dictionary. What seemed the most odd to me though was the fact that the definitions sounded so much a like, regarding the government being run by the people or their elected . Yet, neither gave reference to the other, in their definitions!

I have an older dictionary. Has the definitions changed some, do you know?

Dictionaries don't define our government; the Constitution does. And Article IV Section 4 clearly states that we are guaranteed a republican form of government. Argument over. Case closed. Next thread.

 

[CapelDodger]

What every conversation needs is a pedant with a classical education, and the way it was explained to me many moons ago was :

Res Publica means public matters, so a republic is a form of government which concerns itself with public matters. A kingdom or empire is a strictly private thing, it exists and is governed for the private benefit of the monarch.

A republic is not necessarily democratic. The Roman Republic was a constantly evolving beast, but it was based on an hereditary Senate. The nobility was the public. The Constitutional guarantee of republican government may save Americans from the embarrassment of a monarchy, but may not save democracy. Only their guns can do that.

 

[beeksc1]

From the Oxford Guide to the United States Government:

republicanism Republicanism is the belief in the worth of a republic, a type of government that is based on the consent of the governed and is conducted by elected representatives of the people. In a republican government, the people are sovereign, or supreme, because their representatives serve at their pleasure for the common good. Today, people tend to use the terms republic and representative democracy interchangeably. In contrast to a republic, a pure or direct democracy is a form of government in which the people govern directly—in a town meeting, for example—instead of through representatives whom they elect.

In The Federalist No. 39, James Madison presented the idea of republicanism that is embodied in the U.S. Constitution:

The UK is normally described as a constitutional monarchy in which parliament is supreme. This supremacy dates from the Bill of Rights 1689.
Democracy these days is just a somewhat inaccurate way of describing a method of appointing representatives to a legislature.

+++

Democracy means mob-rule; and the masses are often misled.

A republic is a state who's top priority is economic freedom and individual freedom. As noted, America was founded upon the principles of a republic.

The US is far from a republic: prohibition, Patriot act, Multilateral policy; etc.

The US maybe considered an indirect democracy; but, if both candidates from the major parties are basically of the small ideology, is that a real choice?

Clinton and Bush
Kerry and Bush

Perhaps, the US is considered a psuedo-democracy?

The people get a topical choice; but, when it comes down to the issues, recently it has been two candidates who phrase things differently, yet their messages are practically the same.

Do you choice red or blue?
Do you vote for the establishment of a worldwide supranational government through force and fear-induction? Or do you vote for the establishment of a global oligarchy through gradualism and false-promises?

Any which way, it is just a ride.

 

[Architect]

Democracy is governed by a set of rules and laws - be they a constitution, statute, or common law - which seek to ensure the rights of a minority within a democracy and hence provide a series of checks and balances within the overall system. To suggest, as you have, that any democracy is no more than "mob rule" is - at best - an over simplistic analysis which fails to make a balanced appraisal. Moreover it also focusses on first past the post systems at the expense of alternative voting methods such as proportionate representation.

Really, I'd cut down listing to those old Smiths singles if I were you.