Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Republic?

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

Peter Grimm said:

Well look, I just think that just because the courts rule on something, that doesn't make it right.

Just means I live in a jurocracy, that I live under a law that wasn't democratically decided, but rather decided by some activist judge bending the law to his progressive ends.

It's garbage. The courts are the main culprit in usurping states rights

Let the people decide. Let legislatures legislate, and keep decisions local. Like it was done originally

Click to expand...

If rights were decided by popular vote, the US would still have slavery.

Imo, it's the Constitution/BoR and federal government that protects rights and individual citizens from the abusive power by the states. As I watch my state legislators attempt a land grab that favors unsustainable over development, I'm thankful that we have a federal government (such as it is) that protects the rights of the citizens and the environment for future generations. However, the states can also check the power of the federal Government by passing an amendment to the constitution...or filling the courts with like minded people. But essentially, dividing the power between the states and federal government does seem to create an equilibrium of sorts.

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

disneydude said:

Really....you hear all of these wackos running around acting like "States Rights" trump everything else in this country....its like you said they don't want a "United" States of America....they want a "states can do anything they want...but we still want to pretend that we have something that unites us" Country.

Click to expand...

based upon my reading, the original intention was to limit the amount of power granted to the federal government

local items were to be handled by local legislature......

the feds were there to provide for the safety of the country, and manage interstate trade

basically most things were left up to the states.....and it stayed that way for a long long time

i can remember some states having drinking laws at 18, some at 21......what was wrong with that?

as we have grown as a nation certain things needed to be changed....but we have created a massive federal government....and the founders never intended the power to get this screwed up

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

Moot said:

If rights were decided by popular vote, the US would still have slavery.

Imo, it's the Constitution/BoR and federal government that protects rights and individual citizens from the abusive power by the states. As I watch my state legislators attempt a land grab that favors unsustainable over development, I'm thankful that we have a federal government (such as it is) that protects the rights of the citizens and the environment for future generations. However, the states can also check the power of the federal Government by passing an amendment to the constitution...or filling the courts with like minded people. But essentially, dividing the power between the states and federal government does seem to create an equilibrium of sorts.

Click to expand...

Awesome. So why have a judge? Why not just have a king? Neither is elected, so what's the difference?

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

Moot said:

If rights were decided by popular vote, the US would still have slavery.

Imo, it's the Constitution/BoR and federal government that protects rights and individual citizens from the abusive power by the states. As I watch my state legislators attempt a land grab that favors unsustainable over development, I'm thankful that we have a federal government (such as it is) that protects the rights of the citizens and the environment for future generations. However, the states can also check the power of the federal Government by passing an amendment to the constitution...or filling the courts with like minded people. But essentially, dividing the power between the states and federal government does seem to create an equilibrium of sorts.

Click to expand...

correct, there is to be a balance of powers, between federal and state.

but also a balance of power between the people and the states legislators, which is what creates a republican form of government, and prevent democracy from taking hold in america, and faction from buying and controlling government, however the 17th amendment destroyed that balance.

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

Peter Grimm said:

Awesome. So why have a judge? Why not just have a king? Neither is elected, so what's the difference?

Click to expand...

There are three branches of government and the judiciary is but one. That's a big difference right there. Some judges are elected and some are appointed. A recent study suggests that appointed judges outperform their elected counterparts by a wide margin and tend to be more informed and make less errors. Whereas elected judges tend to become more political and dependent on big donors and often do more harm than good. But the point is, our judicial system has both appointed and elected judges.

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

ernst barkmann said:

correct, there is to be a balance of powers, between federal and state.

but also a balance of power between the people and the states legislators, which is what creates a republican form of government, and prevent democracy from taking hold in america, and faction from buying and controlling government, however the 17th amendment destroyed that balance.

Click to expand...

The fore fathers had democracy, too. In fact, they formed two of the first political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans before the ink was even dry at the signing. The Democrat Republicans favored state rights and farmers and the Federalist favored a strong federal government and businessmen. The Federalists wrote the Federalist Papers which influenced a good portion of the Constitution, and since they won all the national election up to about 1800, I think it's safe to say that the fore fathers and the citizens of the day favored a strong federal government and that was way before the 17th amendment.

First Party System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the notion that our country wasn't founded on democracy or a strong central government is rubbish and shows little understanding or knowledge of US history. In short, this country of ours was founded on business, by business and for business. Substitute beer for business and you have the American revolution in a nutshell.

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

Moot said:

The fore fathers had democracy, too. In fact, they formed two of the first political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans before the ink was even dry at the signing. The Democrat Republicans favored state rights and farmers and the Federalist favored a strong federal government and businessmen. The Federalists wrote the Federalist Papers which influenced a good portion of the Constitution, and since they won all the national election up to about 1800, I think it's safe to say that the fore fathers and the citizens of the day favored a strong federal government and that was way before the 17th amendment.

First Party System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the notion that our country wasn't founded on democracy or a strong central government is rubbish and shows little understanding or knowledge of US history. In short, this country of ours was founded on business, by business and for business. Substitute beer for business and you have the American revolution in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

yes the founders include democracy in the republic, however it is only and single element of the republic, the republic was not a democratic FORM of government.

Madison wrote part of the federalist papers, he was a federalist in the beginning, however quickly his relationship with Hamilton went south and he and jefferson became friends and created the democratic republicans.

the founders hate democratic forms of government, because they are very factious, which is why the founders created a republican form of government, and not a democratic form...article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution

a republic of the founders is a mixed government, of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy rolled into 1.......federalist 40

the house was created has a democracy, it is a collective body, the senate was created as an aristocracy , which is not a democratic body...the democratic body works in the interest of the people, while the senate works in the interest of the states,.....that way laws can only be passed if the people and the states interest are represented...........not just 1 interest.

since you choose to use wikipedia......here is mixed government of the founders.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

by creating the 17th amendment , it has now turned the aristocracy of the senate into a democracy, and destroyed the balance of powers between the people and the states....moving america closer to democracy, and toward a very factious government of the elite.

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

ernst barkmann said:

yes the founders include democracy in the republic, however it is only and single element of the republic, the republic was not a democratic FORM of government.

Madison wrote part of the federalist papers, he was a federalist in the beginning, however quickly his relationship with Hamilton went south and he and jefferson became friends and created the democratic republicans.

Click to expand...

It doesn't change the fact that the Constitution was based largely on the Federalist papers. Anti-Federalists complained there weren't any protections for individual rights and so the BoR was created.

the founders hate democratic forms of government, because they are very factious, which is why the founders created a republican form of government, and not a democratic form...article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution

a republic of the founders is a mixed government, of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy rolled into 1.......federalist 40

the house was created has a democracy, it is a collective body, the senate was created as an aristocracy , which is not a democratic body...the democratic body works in the interest of the people, while the senate works in the interest of the states,.....that way laws can only be passed if the people and the states interest are represented...........not just 1 interest.

Click to expand...

The Senate was created as democratic body, too. Not sure why you think it wasn't....unless your analogy is flawed. The Senate represents their respective states and the House represents smaller districts. Both are democratic representative bodies elected by the people...so perhaps a better comparison can be made with the senate of the Roman Republic.....

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

A mixed government is an idea that might have influenced the three branches of government: the one (president), the few (the senate) and the many (house of representatives), but that's where the similarity ends because the senate and the house are considered one branch aka congress and the judiciary is the third branch in our system. We also have a representative democracy to elect the president and congressmen, not a monarchy. The constitution set it up that way.

by creating the 17th amendment , it has now turned the aristocracy of the senate into a democracy, and destroyed the balance of powers between the people and the states....moving america closer to democracy, and toward a very factious government of the elite.

Click to expand...

I don't know about aristocracy but the Senate has always been a representative democracy.

Not sure what you mean when you say you prefer less democracy in congress, because Senator Harry Reid (D) hardly ever brought a bill to the floor for a vote, whereas Senator McConnell (R) vowed to do the opposite. So are you trying to say you prefer Democrat control over the Senate to Republican...or something?

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

ernst barkmann said:

the u.s. is no longer a true republic, since the 17th amendment.

Click to expand...

some would say the 14th actually

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

Peter Grimm said:

Actually, we should channel our inner Star Trek and just call ourselves "The Federation."

That might be more descriptive.

Click to expand...

Very Logical Admiral Grimm:mrgreen:

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

Moot said:

It doesn't change the fact that the Constitution was based largely on the Federalist papers. Anti-Federalists complained there weren't any protections for individual rights and so the BoR was created.



The Senate was created as democratic body, too. Not sure why you think it wasn't....unless your analogy is flawed. The Senate represents their respective states and the House represents smaller districts. Both are democratic representative bodies elected by the people...so perhaps a better comparison can be made with the senate of the Roman Republic.....

"....The Roman Republic was the first government in the western world to have a representative government, despite taking the form of a direct government in the Roman assemblies. The Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries,[3] and today's modern representative democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models because it was a state in which supreme power was held by the people and their elected representatives, and which had an elected or nominated leader.[4]....."

Representative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

A mixed government is an idea that might have influenced the three branches of government: the one (president), the few (the senate) and the many (house of representatives), but that's where the similarity ends because the senate and the house are considered one branch aka congress and the judiciary is the third branch in our system. We also have a representative democracy to elect the president and congressmen, not a monarchy. The constitution set it up that way.


I don't know about aristocracy but the Senate has always been a representative democracy.

Not sure what you mean when you say you prefer less democracy in congress, because Senator Harry Reid (D) hardly ever brought a bill to the floor for a vote, whereas Senator McConnell (R) vowed to do the opposite. So are you trying to say you prefer Democrat control over the Senate to Republican...or something?

Click to expand...

sorry no.

the house is a democracy because it is democratic vote of the people.

before the 17th the senate is a non democratic vote....because it is elected by the state legislatures.

our government was created as a mixed government, as Madison states in the federalist 40, and references Polybius in federalist 63...... the father of mixed government.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...esenative-democracy-but-mixed-government.html

democracy is democratic form of government, in federalist 10 Madison states clearly our government was to be republican and not democratic.

federalist 10- The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

TurtleDude said:

some would say the 14th actually

Click to expand...

well a republic, is about how the government is constructed by dividing power, that power to make laws is never placed in just 1 set of hands.

that is why the founders constructed a republican government, for a bill to be made law it must pass the house, which is the interest of the people, then it must pass the senate, which is the interest of the states [state legislatures] since they elect the senator, then it must be signed into law by the president who is to represent the interest of the UNION, because he is elected by [electors/electoral collage].

this makes all new laws created, in the interest of the......... people, states and the union.

the 14th amendment was originally written for slaves as stated by the USSC in 1873, however later the court applied it to all americans, and the federal government has used federal law to corrupt the amendment by applying it to citizens also......instead of only governments, which is what it was designed for.

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

ernst barkmann said:

sorry no.

the house is a democracy because it is democratic vote of the people.

before the 17th the senate is a non democratic vote....because it is elected by the state legislatures.

Click to expand...

Who elected the state legislatures? People? As previously pointed out it doesn't matter if governments use 'direct democracy' or 'indirect democracy' its still a democracy. You even admitted as much when you said that prior to the 17th amendment the Senate was elected by state legislatures. That is by definition an 'indirect democracy."

our government was created as a mixed government, as Madison states in the federalist 40, and references Polybius in federalist 63...... the father of mixed government.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...esenative-democracy-but-mixed-government.html

democracy is democratic form of government, in federalist 10 Madison states clearly our government was to be republican and not democratic.
federalist 10- The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Click to expand...

I think you're confusing 'direct democracy' with 'indirect democracy'. Sure, Madison was against pure or direct democracy because he didn't think minority rights and issues should be subject to popular vote. But he was not against "indirect democracy" which is what we have and have had since the constitution was written. But we do have a form 'direct democracy' at the state local level in the form of propositions, referendums and initiatives where the people can have a direct vote to decide an issue. We don't have that at the national level.

Madison preferred the federal government be an "indirect democracy" aka "representative democracy" and when he said 'republic' he meant like the Roman Republic which was a representative democracy. The forefathers even called it the Senate...so I don't how much more clear they could possibly be as to who or what their main influence was. It looks pretty obvious to me.

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

moot said:

who elected the state legislatures? People? As previously pointed out it doesn't matter if governments use 'direct democracy' or 'indirect democracy' its still a democracy. You even admitted as much when you said that prior to the 17th amendment the senate was elected by state legislatures. That is by definition an 'indirect democracy."

i think you're confusing 'direct democracy' with 'indirect democracy'. Sure, madison was against pure or direct democracy because he didn't think minority rights and issues should be subject to popular vote. But he was not against "indirect democracy" which is what we have and have had since the constitution was written. But we do have a form 'direct democracy' at the state local level in the form of propositions, referendums and initiatives where the people can have a direct vote to decide an issue. We don't have that at the national level.

Madison preferred the federal government be an "indirect democracy" aka "representative democracy" and when he said 'republic' he meant like the roman republic which was a representative democracy. The forefathers even called it the senate...so i don't how much more clear they could possibly be as to who or what their main influence was. It looks pretty obvious to me.

Click to expand...

if the government was a representative democracy, then it would have been a democratic form of government when it was created....it was not its republican.

The u.s. Government was constructed on the roman republic...not the governments of greece.

The founders hate democratic forms of government......they know of direct democracy and representative democracy because they speak about both.

John admans in his works #6 condemns representative democracy as a government, stating it is a terrible government, doomed with faction.

The roman republic was not a democracy, the people do not have all direct power, and neither did the america people..

The only part of america government that is created as a democracy was the house.

Democracy came into the minds of the american people as out form of government during the progressive era, of 1880 to 1920......even the progressive president woodrow wilson states in this writings, "america was not created a democracy.


Woodrow Wilson, in Division and Reunion (pg 12), wrote that "The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities..." 27 Professor John D. Hicks in his book on The Federal Union said "Such statements could be multiplied almost at will." 28


So you are wrong. In your idea wthat america was created a democracy

An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

-= Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788 =

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/186640-democracy-and-republic-w-172-a.html


Classical Republic, (Greek: πολιτεια; Latin: respublica) is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

A republic, in the classical form, is a type of government that is made up of a mixture of elements from three other types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. There is the Spartan model, which is a tripartite form of government which is a combination of kings, gerousia (aristocracy) and the assembly of all the males (democratic body). There is the Roman model that has a civilian head, and an aristocratic body which is the Senate and smaller assemblies representing the citizens. A republic is marked by a bicameral legislative body (the upper house being aristocratic) and by a written constitution that marks out the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies.

The classical republic or 'mixed government' is a product of the cultural mindset of the Indo-European races of trifunctionality1 and by and large, generated by citizen/soldier/farmer societies. It was first developed by the Doric Greeks on the island of Crete. 11 It is a by-product of the special Doric Cretan mentality of syncretism (which "Crete" forms the central portion of the word).62 "What the Dorians endeavoured to obtain in a state was good order, or cosmos, the regular combination of different elements." 58

Because of the character of the Anglo-Saxons,1 Britain in the 13th century naturally evolved into the structure of a classical republic mirroring the Spartan model. 2 The old English word "Commonwealth" is same as the Latin word Res publica. 57 The Founding Fathers of the United States modelled America along the same lines as her mother country, Britain, and the Roman Republic with her civilian head. Since the 1920's, there have been no governments that are 'mixed'.



Mentality between republic and democracy

Aristotle does not use the word democracy and republic interchangeably; neither does Socrates in Plato's Republic.

Aristotle defines a republic as the rule of law. "...it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens, and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them;... the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern..." 21 Thomas Jefferson beseeched his countrymen to "bind men down from mischief by the chains of the constitution". 61

A democracy's mentality is that the people are sovereign and have become a law unto themselves wherefore the phrase vox populi, vox dei. The mentality of Despotism, as it can be seen in the Asian kings of the Pharoahs, Babylonians and Persians, Alexander the Great, his successors and the Roman Emperors starting with Julius Caesar, is that the king or Emperor makes the law so he is God. For the Spartan mindset, the Law, the golden mean, is to rule not men collectively or singly as the Spartan King advises Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae, to wit, "The point is that although they're free, they're not entirely free; their master is the law, and they're far more afraid of this than your men are of you. At any rate, they do whatever the law commands...". 38 A man's obedience, loyalty, and fidelity lie in the law and not in persons; the Spartan mindset being, "I'm obedient to the law but under no man". 64

Aristotle notices that a democracy puts the people above the law: "men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people's being sovereign even over the laws." 22

When the law loses respect, Aristotle says in V vii 7 that "constitutional government turns into a democracy". And in that situation, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle fear the possibility that "Tyranny, then arises from no other form of government than democracy." Then, democracies are no more than ochlocracies. In more recent times, Huey Long said that when fascism came to the United States it would call itself "democracy". 23 See The Kyklos.

Re: Should the United States of America change its name to the American Federal Repub

Peter Grimm said:

The United States of America.

How quaint.

Click to expand...

To hear that name, it sounds almost as if we were intended to be a collection of semi-independent states, united under one government for defense against tyranny.

There was a time when that name actually described us.

No more. What does a state even do anymore? The federal government has grabbed so much power from the states, the "50 nifty" are nothing but lame shadows of themselves.

That is NOT what the founders had in mind. We were never meant to be a centrally-governed monolith. But that's exactly what we have become.

For example, if Texas wants to sell assault rifles, ban gay marriage, and if Colorado wants to legalize marijuana, is it really right that someone on the east coast gets to lord over YOUR state and tell you what laws you can and cannot have in your own jurisdiction?

So we should change our name. I get it... The United States has a quaint, nostalgic appeal. Like an old wooden cottage nobody lives in anymore, but everyone thinks is so cute. But really, the American Federal Republic suits us much better.

That was never the intention.

Click to expand...

No matter what you call the USA it will still be the USA. But I doubt that the USA will be changing its name anytime soon.

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." ~ Shakespeare :roll: