DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC[W:172]

newpublius said:

Ernst, please read Federalist 39 in its entirety. Federalist No. 39 -- Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

Madison first writes about the term 'Republic' and how the term is misused throughout the world to describe governments which aren't really Republics.

Madison goes on to give a broad definition wherein he says: "If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior."

In essence Madison's argument is that the plan in fact does conform to Republican principles, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, so to suggest direct election of Senators by the people, demanded by the XVII Amendment makes the plan inconsistent with Republican principles, I'd have to disagree, the key is that the people are sovereign, all legitimate authority is derived from them.

And remember, even if the Amendment changes this, Amendments DO change the Constitution, quite lawfully. There is no such animal as an unconstitutional Amendment. (There can be an unjust Amendment, but that's a different question) -- look at the Preamble itself. We the People....DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH.

Click to expand...

i do not know where you have the idea, i believe the 17th is unconstitutional i have not said that.........it has be alleged that it was not property ratified......but that is something different.

i stated clearly, many times, Madison makes a distinction between republican government and democratic government......and America is republican.

a republican form of government to the founders is a classical republic of antiquity....IE. ROMAN REPUBLIC..........the roman republic was a mixed government.. Polybuis is the creator of mixed government, and he is referenced in -------->federalist 63

in mixed government, it divides power so that power is NEVER concentrated solely in 1 entity, example 1 person who would become a dictator, ---a few which would become and oligarchy-- all the people, which would be majority rule/mob rule, .....because to the founders, any single one of those holding all direct power is tyranny.

mixed government--power is divide under the this process......the people have 1/2 direct power, and the states have 1/2 of the other direct power, with that latter half controlled by the people indirectly.

federalist 47--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

federalist 48--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.

john Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.



these two statements from Madison say a great deal,.....he states if the house, senate and (if) the president are all elected directly by the people....then power is not divided and it is not balanced, because only direct power resides in the hands of the people only.....when direct power in only set in 1 entity .......it is tyranny.

haymarket said:

You cannot end the story if it never got started for you in the first place. An apple is a fruit. If the rule is that you must serve fruit at dinner - you do not have to serve an apple. Even if you can find quotes from the people who wrote the rule about fruit at dinner saying that apples were their favorite and they had an apple in mind as the fruit they preferred served. If they did not specify and apple and instead specified fruit, the any fruit fulfills the mandate.

Perhaps that will help you see that while the Constitution mandates a republican form - it DOES NOT MANDATE MIXED GOVERNMENT according to your description of it and its ingredients. There are many ways to fulfill the qualification for a republican form as long as the central ingredient is the people electing representatives to run government in their name. And that is what our current US government does.

Click to expand...

republican form of government = mixed government according to the founders.

newpublius said:

Ernst, please read Federalist 39 in its entirety. Federalist No. 39 -- Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

Madison first writes about the term 'Republic' and how the term is misused throughout the world to describe governments which aren't really Republics.

Madison goes on to give a broad definition wherein he says: "If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior."

In essence Madison's argument is that the plan in fact does conform to Republican principles, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, so to suggest direct election of Senators by the people, demanded by the XVII Amendment makes the plan inconsistent with Republican principles, I'd have to disagree, the key is that the people are sovereign, all legitimate authority is derived from them.

And remember, even if the Amendment changes this, Amendments DO change the Constitution, quite lawfully. There is no such animal as an unconstitutional Amendment. (There can be an unjust Amendment, but that's a different question) -- look at the Preamble itself. We the People....DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH.

Click to expand...

What was Polybius' theory of the mixed constitution

What was Polybius' theory of the mixed constitution?

ernst barkmann said:

republican form of government = mixed government according to the founders.

Click to expand...

repeating the same phrase as some sort of comforting mantra when it has been thoroughly debunked is hardly any sort of intellectual argument. The Constitution mandates a republican form - it DOES NOT MANDATE MIXED GOVERNMENT according to your description of it and its ingredients. There are many ways to fulfill the qualification for a republican form as long as the central ingredient is the people electing representatives to run government in their name. And that is what our current US government does.

If the Founders - ALL 55 of them - had mandated a MIXED GOVERNMENT and specified the ingredients as you understand them - then you might have the inklings of a case. But they DID NOT.

Those Founders - all 55 of them - mandated a republican form and in addition to that also authorized changes in the details of government with the establishment of the Amendment process.

You have no case either way.

ernst barkmann said:

What was Polybius' theory of the mixed constitution

What was Polybius' theory of the mixed constitution?

Click to expand...

Publius? {sic} Madison tells you that in Federalist 39 as well. Let's also remember that the Guarantee Clause is also a guarantee that the states will have a 'republican' form and obviously states are unitary states complete with referendums. The objection posed to the form of the government at the time wasn't that it wasn't republican, but that it was 'national' as opposed to 'confederal' or 'federal'

""But it was not sufficient,'' say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.'' And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision. "

Madison concludes by describing the hybridized form of government create: "The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national."

The only true condition is that the government lie on a foundation of sovereignty, the sovereignty of the people.

See: Virginia's Ratification: Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States

and more importantly, the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

I think the problem here is that you're looking at the word 'republican' in a more narrow sense, which, to be fair in its unqualified use tends to mean something else than its use in this context which is broader, but its clear to me that 'republican' = a government which deriv[es] [its] just powers from the consent of the governed, ie that it be the manifestation of the sovereign will of the people.

newpublius said:

Publius? {sic} Madison tells you that in Federalist 39 as well. Let's also remember that the Guarantee Clause is also a guarantee that the states will have a 'republican' form and obviously states are unitary states complete with referendums. The objection posed to the form of the government at the time wasn't that it wasn't republican, but that it was 'national' as opposed to 'confederal' or 'federal'

""But it was not sufficient,'' say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.'' And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision. "

Madison concludes by describing the hybridized form of government create: "The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national."

The only true condition is that the government lie on a foundation of sovereignty, the sovereignty of the people.

See: Virginia's Ratification: Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States

and more importantly, the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

I think the problem here is that you're looking at the word 'republican' in a more narrow sense, which, to be fair in its unqualified use tends to mean something else than its use in this context which is broader, but its clear to me that 'republican' = a government which deriv[es] [its] just powers from the consent of the governed, ie that it be the manifestation of the sovereign will of the people.

Click to expand...

newpublius i understand what you are telling me, and i am not disputing what you are saying to me, however you and i are not discussing the exact same things.

you are on more of separation of powers, meaning federalism which is why you keep referencing federalist 39, and this is a subject i am not discussing, .......federalism is a separation of power, but it also is a balance of power

federalism is the separation of powers, between the.................federal government and the states governments.

i am discussing the separation of powers between the state governments and "we the people"........mixed government................mixed government is a separation of power and a balance of power also.


first..... like me explain what mixed government/mixed constitution......is

monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, as single forms of government.......DO NOT WORK.... the founders knew this by reading of governments of the past.

monarchy fails because the king becomes a tyrant.

aristocracy fails because it becomes an oligarchy with a few ruling as tyrants.

democracy fails because in time, it becomes mob rule takes over......with the majority ruling over the minority.


to give you a clear example using yourself.

if you newpublius were given all power, and their was no one to check your power, you who become a tyrant,....history proves this........

if you newpublius and your other family members were given all power and their was no one else to check you and your family members power, you and they would rule as an oligarchy, and the people only be serfs.

if you newpublius and every other citizen were given all power, and no check placed on that power, then the majority of those citizens, 51% in time would rule over the 49%, and the 49% would see their rights gone, property taken, and themselves reduced to serfs.

so the founders were seeking to prevent each of these from happening in America.


so they didn't want a monarchy as a single form of government, ---------or a oligarchy as a single form of government, ----------or a democracy as a single form of government.

so they took all 3 of those forms and put them into single form----------> called republican, as the Romans did......, and a republican form of government is a mixed government, meaning mixed because it is a mixture of those 3 forms............monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.


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 are decided by the majority of the people----->[house],.

some other issues by few [senate]

and some other issues by a single person [president] .............The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


continued below

the house represents the interest of the people

the senate represents the interest of the states

the president represents the interest of the union as a whole.

for any legislative bill to pass congress and be signed by the president into law...........the interest of the people, [house vote], the interest of the states [ senate vote], and the interest of the union[ president signature]......must all be presented.

this way all laws passed must be in the interest of everyone......the people, the states, and the union as a whole.

by amendment 17-- this has changed the structure of government concerning that separation of powers......between the monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy

now our government has a separation of powers based on ....monarchy, and democracy ONLY, ......because the aristocracy part has been removed because of the amendment.

congress by itself used to be the aristocracy, and democracy part, ...is now only a democracy, because both upper and lower houses are directly elected by the people.....there is no longer state interest, represented in congress.

by having no state representation in our government, the states are powerless, to stop the power of the federal government, which has usurped many state powers, and violated ---------> the federalism we are supposed to have.

you may ask how is the senate a aristocracy........because it was not directly elected by the people, each senator was elected by his state legislature of his state, and each Senator represented the interest of that state, and did what the state directed him to do [how to vote], ...this gives the states a check on federal power, so it cannot expand, and usurp powers of states or rights of the people.


all of this is meant to be checks and balances of government........that is what mixed government DOES!

have i missed anything from what i have explained.

please read federalist 62 and 63....it explains why the senate was created........what is its main purpose.

ernst barkmann said:

all of this is meant to be checks and balances of government........that is what mixed government DOES!

have i missed anything, you still do not understand, from what i have explained.

Click to expand...

So what? What is your main point?

haymarket said:

repeating the same phrase as some sort of comforting mantra when it has been thoroughly debunked is hardly any sort of intellectual argument. The constitution mandates a republican form - it does not mandate mixed government according to your description of it and its ingredients. There are many ways to fulfill the qualification for a republican form as long as the central ingredient is the people electing representatives to run government in their name. And that is what our current us government does.

If the founders - all 55 of them - had mandated a mixed government and specified the ingredients as you understand them - then you might have the inklings of a case. But they did not.

Those founders - all 55 of them - mandated a republican form and in addition to that also authorized changes in the details of government with the establishment of the amendment process.

You have no case either way.

Click to expand...

the end-

ernst barkmann said:

the end-

Click to expand...

Great. It appears you have finally tossed in the towel and conceded!!!!!

What is your point you are attempting to make with all this MIXED GOVERNMENT nonsense?

haymarket said:

So what? What is your main point?

Click to expand...

YOU STILL CANT FIGURE IT OUT....

LAST TIME FOR YOU.

BY THE 17TH AMENDMENT......THIS HAS GOTTEN RID OF THE ARISTOCRACY PART OF OUR REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.

SINCE THE STATES NO LONGER HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE SENATE REPRESENTING THEIR INTEREST, ....THE STATES HAVE LOST THEIR VOICE IN GOVERNMENT, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS USURPED THEIR POWERS, And violated rights of the people, because there is nothing to check and balance powers now

ernst barkmann said:

YOU STILL CANT FIGURE IT OUT....

LAST TIME FOR YOU.

BY THE 17TH AMENDMENT......THIS HAS GOTTEN RID OF THE ARISTOCRACY PART OF OUR REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.

SINCE THE STATES NO LONGER HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE SENATE REPRESENTING THEIR INTEREST, ....THE STATES HAVE LOST THEIR VOICE IN GOVERNMENT, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS USURPED THEIR POWERS, And violated rights of the people, because ther is nothing to check and balance power now

Click to expand...

What specific right are you quoting from the Constitution that has been violated by the Constitution itself?

haymarket said:

What specific right are you quoting from the Constitution that has been violated by the Constitution itself?

Click to expand...

i am not quoting a right.

i am speaking of the structure of the federal government, how it was constructed, to protect the interest of all parties involved.

interest of the people, the states and the union.

the interest of the states has been removed with the 17th

ernst barkmann said:

i am not quoting a right.

i am speaking of the structure of the federal government, how it was constructed, to protect the interest of all parties involved.

interest of the people, the states and the union.

the interest of the states has been removed with the 17th

Click to expand...

You certainly did in your previous post:

BY THE 17TH AMENDMENT......THIS HAS GOTTEN RID OF THE ARISTOCRACY PART OF OUR REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.

SINCE THE STATES NO LONGER HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE SENATE REPRESENTING THEIR INTEREST, ....THE STATES HAVE LOST THEIR VOICE IN GOVERNMENT, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS USURPED THEIR POWERS, And violated rights of the people, because ther is nothing to check and balance power now

Click to expand...

So what RIGHT are you referring to specifically?

haymarket said:

You certainly did in your previous post:




So what RIGHT are you referring to specifically?

Click to expand...

i see , you mean rights of the people, i said the federal government has violated......ok, i will give you a prefect example.


THE ACA

when the ACA law was passed it declared that every American had to buy insurance or be taxed for not doing it.........government has no authority to force Americans to buy product from the private sector.....it would be the same as telling you.....you had to buy a new car whenever the government told you to.


the example itself:

to show you how with the aristocracy element of our mixed government being gone,---------> this has changed our government....and allowed laws, which at not in state interest to be passed. and rights of the people, -------->to NOT have to buy insurance.


the ACA VOTE ...in the senate was a party line vote, and it passed the senate, and became law.

however after it was passed, 26 states sued the federal government , stating it was unconstitutional.

if the 17th amendment was not in the place, those 26 states, would have directed 52 senators, in the senate to vote "no" on the ACA bill, ..........>and this would have KILLED the ACA

but because of the 17th, those 26 states had no way to stop the bill , because they no longer have a voice in the senate or a way to check federal power, and stop the federal government from violating rights of the people and usurping state powers.

ernst barkmann said:

i see , you mean rights of the people, i said the federal government has violated......ok, i will give you a prefect example.


THE ACA

when the ACA law was passed it declared that every American had to buy insurance or be taxed for not doing it.........government has no authority to force Americans to buy product from the private sector.....it would be the same as telling you.....you had to buy a new car whenever the government told you to.


the example itself:

to show you how with the aristocracy element of our mixed government being gone,---------> this has changed our government....and allowed laws, which at not in state interest to be passed. and rights of the people, -------->to NOT have to buy insurance.


the ACA VOTE ...in the senate was a party line vote, and it passed the senate, and became law.

however after it was passed, 26 states sued the federal government , stating it was unconstitutional.

if the 17th amendment was not in the place, those 26 states, would have directed 52 senators, in the senate to vote "no" on the ACA bill, ..........>and this would have KILLED the ACA

but because of the 17th, those 26 states had no way to stop the bill , because they no longer have a voice in the senate or a way to check federal power, and stop the federal government from violating rights of the people and usurping state powers.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what any of that digression - as filled with inaccuracies at it is - has to do with you showing that the 17th Amendment is causing the Constitution to be violated - let alone this extremely vague and unspecific "rights of the people" that you cannot seem to identify nor pin down with any specificity. No idea at all.

haymarket said:

I have no idea what any of that digression - as filled with inaccuracies at it is - has to do with you showing that the 17th Amendment is causing the Constitution to be violated - let alone this extremely vague and unspecific "rights of the people" that you cannot seem to identify nor pin down with any specificity. No idea at all.

Click to expand...

it was explained, however you did your usual, "i don't know what your talking about".... scenario.

which you do frequently, when confronted with truth and don't know how to answer.

ernst barkmann said:

it was explained, however you did your usual, "i don't know what your talking about".... scenario.

which you do frequently, when confronted with truth and don't know how to answer.

Click to expand...

I have repeatedly given you a very specific answer. The specific answer is

SO WHAT!!!!!!

All your talk.... all your intellectual gymnastics ..... all your gnashing of teeth over the 17th Amendment ------ SO WHAT? It means nothing and is irrelevant. Yes - it changed the Constitution and the way US Senators are sent to office. So what? It was a Constitutional Amendment authorized by the states themselves and ratified by the same states you scream bout being disenfranchised.

You don't like the 17th Amendment. Fine. So what? You have no legal argument. You have no Constitutional argument as the change came from the Constitution itself.

You have nothing except your own hatred of the 17th Amendment. That and five bucks buys you a fancy cup of coffee. Aside from that - it gets you nothing and is irrelevant.

haymarket said:

I have repeatedly given you a very specific answer. The specific answer is

SO WHAT!!!!!!

All your talk.... all your intellectual gymnastics ..... all your gnashing of teeth over the 17th Amendment ------ SO WHAT? It means nothing and is irrelevant. Yes - it changed the Constitution and the way US Senators are sent to office. So what? It was a Constitutional Amendment authorized by the states themselves and ratified by the same states you scream bout being disenfranchised.

You don't like the 17th Amendment. Fine. So what? You have no legal argument. You have no Constitutional argument as the change came from the Constitution itself.

You have nothing except your own hatred of the 17th Amendment. That and five bucks buys you a fancy cup of coffee. Aside from that - it gets you nothing and is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

sorry i only explained what the 17th did....your rant shows your uncontrolled emotion [democrat for sure] when truth hits you in the face.

ernst barkmann said:

sorry i only explained what the 17th did....your rant shows your uncontrolled emotion [democrat for sure] when truth hits you in the face.

Click to expand...

And again..... SO WHAT!!!!!?????

What is it that you want the nation to do about this tremendous travesty brought on by the horrible 17th Amendment?

haymarket said:

And again..... SO WHAT!!!!!?????

What is it that you want the nation to do about this tremendous travesty brought on by the horrible 17th Amendment?

Click to expand...

repeal of the 17th by lawful means, restore states voice back into the federal government, providing the check and balance the founders created.

move away from 2 elements of democracy in our government and return back to just 1 element.

however this is not going to happen, because people are under the delusion, that if they vote directly the way the current structure of government is, this gives them power, however this is incorrect, democracy only allows faction/special interest to have the real power, and control government, which is why the nation is going into decline.

under mixed government laws would only pass congress which would be in the interest of the people, states and the union...instead of an.......... elite rich few.

ernst barkmann said:

repeal of the 17th by lawful means, restore states voice back into the federal government, providing the check and balance the founders created.

move away from 2 elements of democracy in our government and return back to just 1 element.

however this is not going to happen, because people are under the delusion, that if they vote directly the way the current structure of government is, this gives them power, however this is incorrect, democracy only allows faction/special interest to have the real power, and control government, which is why the nation is going into decline.

under mixed government laws would only pass congress which would be in the interest of the people, states and the union...instead of an.......... elite rich few.

Click to expand...

Thank you for finally getting to the point. All this is a political argument made by you to further the goal of the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Got it loud and clear.

I am at least glad and gratified to see you exercise a modicum of common sense and acceptance of reality in your candid admission that this is NOT going to happen.

haymarket said:

Thank you for finally getting to the point. All this is a political argument made by you to further the goal of the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Got it loud and clear.

I am at least glad and gratified to see you exercise a modicum of common sense and acceptance of reality in your candid admission that this is NOT going to happen.

Click to expand...

of coarse i know its not going to happen.

Jeremiah preached to the Israelite's for many years, and told them if they didn't change their ways, they would be conquered, ......they didn't change......and they were conquered

here people believe democracy representes them, and gives them power, however democracy be it direct or representative is a failure, as the founders state, ..yet people have been fooled [ and will not listen and understand] into wanting it as a whole form of government ....and thinking its the best form.

if the founders thought that they would have given us a democratic form of government, and had direct election for all our officials.

democracy monarchy and aristocracy, all as single forms fail......as America moves deeper into the waters of democracy, the elite will only gain more power, and america will become a dictatorship, followed by anarchy, ...which is the [natural] cycle of those 3 governments.

ernst barkmann said:

of coarse i know its not going to happen.

Jeremiah preached to the Israelite's for many years, and told them if they didn't change their ways, they would be conquered, ......they didn't change......and they were conquered

here people believe democracy representes them, and gives them power, however democracy be it direct or representative is a failure, as the founders state, ..yet people have been fooled [ and will not listen and understand] into wanting it as a whole form of government ....and thinking its the best form.

if the founders thought that they would have given us a democratic form of government, and had direct election for all our officials.

democracy monarchy and aristocracy, all as single forms fail......as America moves deeper into the waters of democracy, the elite will only gain more power, and america will become a dictatorship, followed by anarchy, ...which is the [natural] cycle of those 3 governments.

Click to expand...

I see. And does God speak to you on this holy mission as he did to Jeremiah?

haymarket said:

I see. And does God speak to you on this holy mission as he did to Jeremiah?

Click to expand...

the point is .....people don't listen, and do not educate themselves on what kind of government they have.

our declining path is democracy, then dictatorship, then anarchy...the cycle is always the same.

so god, has nothing to deal with the subject....i used Jeremiah, because he told the people for many years, what was going to happen, and he was ignored.