• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the United States a Republic, but not a Democracy?

SmartCat said:
In a parliamentary system like that in the UK the majority of representatives in Parliament lack the restraints of the separation of powers, and can vote pass any law they want to. Does the British parliamentary system exhibit the problems you mention?
Click to expand...

Have you taken a look at their hate speech laws? There is no freedom of speech there.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No. The fact that federal laws may change, independent of the constitution, is not the issue. The issue is what, if any, limits on federal (state or local) power does the constitution really provide? My assertion is that they noow come (and go) based on that 5/4 opinion process of the SCOTUS alone. Maybe the country could apply sufficient pressure to amend the constitution, as it did with the 19A, to establish a "new" right (or limit on government power) but what are the odds that a supermajority of congress critters would seek to limit its own power?
Click to expand...

This the reason for such importance of the first and second amendment. Our forefathers knew the downfall of this country would be from within. They knew it would come from the very people who were supposed to protect our rights and freedom. A corupt and power hungry government that no longer serves the people but wishes to rule the people. They knew the people at some point would again need to come together and speak out and take arms to reign our government back under control of the people.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

A Democracy is governed by the whims of the majority of people voting at any given time. A Republic is governed by officials elected by people to represent them in the government. A Constitutional Republic is like a Republic, but the elected officials are restricted in power and authority by the Constitution.

The first to suffer in a true Democracy are natural rights, freedom, and liberty, for the majority will suppress the minorities rights, freedom, and liberty by plebiscite to ensure their power over "others."
Click to expand...

Exactly. But you would never know it by listening to our president who wants to vote away our rights almost every time he opens his mouth.
 
SmartCat said:
Can you point to examples of this in the present world?
Click to expand...

I do not think their are any. It is clearly a poor form of government. It only exist in the minds of our presidents when making speeches on why are army is marching on foreign soil.
 
SmartCat said:
One occasionally hears, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."

What does this statement mean? Is it true? Should it be true?

In my opinion there is no contradiction between a government being a republic and a democracy. A republic is a government that is not ruled by an hereditary monarch. A democracy is a government where the rulers are elected by the voters. The UK is not a republic. It is a democracy, and the oldest one in fact. Most contemporary dictatorships are republics, but not democracies.

Also, where did the saying, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" originate? Who first said it?

From what I have been able to find out this saying originated with the John Birch Society. A significant percentage of the Republican Party did not accept the reforms of the New Deal. They hoped that President Eisenhower would reverse these reforms. Eisenhower did not, because he knew that they were popular.

When reactionaries came to agree that the reforms of the New Deal were popular with the voters, they invented this saying in order to deny that the will of the majority has moral and legal significance.

Or so it seems to me. :twocents:
Click to expand...
It's a republic but with principles of democracy merged within.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No. The fact that federal laws may change, independent of the constitution, is not the issue. The issue is what, if any, limits on federal (state or local) power does the constitution really provide? My assertion is that they noow come (and go) based on that 5/4 opinion process of the SCOTUS alone. Maybe the country could apply sufficient pressure to amend the constitution, as it did with the 19A, to establish a "new" right (or limit on government power) but what are the odds that a supermajority of congress critters would seek to limit its own power?
Click to expand...

The Constitution already provides a number of checks on the power of federal courts, including the Supreme Court. I have written about them in detail several times on these forums. What is lacking is the will to use these checks, which may be caused largely by nothing more than widespread lack of knowledge about them. The Supreme Court has done a very good job of promoting the false notion that it has the last word on all things constitutional, and too many people have let themselves be gulled by it.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Exactly. But you would never know it by listening to our president who wants to vote away our rights almost every time he opens his mouth.
Click to expand...

So far, in most instances, the SCOTUS has knocked his unconstitutional EO's down. I have a feeling that we haven't seen the last of these SCOTUS rulings.
 
SmartCat said:
One occasionally hears, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."

What does this statement mean?
Click to expand...

It means that the people who say such things have a calendar on their wall that begins with the two digits 17--.

The various political reforms of the last century and a half have transformed us into a democratic republic. To ignore the first half of that descriptor reveals much about the speakers lean and beliefs.
 
matchlight said:
The Constitution already provides a number of checks on the power of federal courts, including the Supreme Court. I have written about them in detail several times on these forums. What is lacking is the will to use these checks, which may be caused largely by nothing more than widespread lack of knowledge about them. The Supreme Court has done a very good job of promoting the false notion that it has the last word on all things constitutional, and too many people have let themselves be gulled by it.
Click to expand...

I was always told the last word or checks on any law is we the people by our enforcing of the law in a jury trial. Once a jury of our peers rules innocent that is the last word and should not be challenged. To err in favor of innocent is necessary to insure a person is not singled out and persecuted by a corupt government. The jury is normally the only people in our judicial system that has nothing to gain or lose by the decision of innocence or guilt. That is not true of any other members of our judicial system who are judged on the number of arrest and convictions that leads to corruption.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I still find it troubling when the SCOTUS rules that "equal protection" makes it unconstitutional (since 1868 or 1973?) for a state to deny the marriage contract of two consenting adults be they men, women or one of each but not illegal to deny recognizing the marriage of three consenting people. It seems that equal protection means whatever the SCOTUS decides that it means on a very narrow case by case basis. It did not really say, as many often assert, that marriage is a fundamental human right of any and all consenting adults but that the state may limit the number of partners in a marriage contract yet simply not their gender. Why is there no such number of partners limit upon a state issued, business partnership?
Click to expand...

I do not know the answer to that. All I can say is that the members of the court are not high priests--they are mere mortals like the rest of us and subject to error.

I used to agree with James Madison that the courts would be the last bulwark against tyranny, under the federal method of life time appointments instead of elections. But in this day and age it is certain that Madison and I were hopeless romantics for thinking that. The Judiciary is as corrupt as the other 2 branches.
 
SmartCat said:
Can you point to examples of this in the present world?
Click to expand...

How have "the minorities rights, freedom, and liberty" been harmed in the United States?

Please mention the minority, and explain how the majority has reduced its "rights, freedom, and liberty."
 
If it were a democracy the public majority could impose their views via force or otherwise upon the public minority. Oh, wait...
 
SmartCat said:
How have "the minorities rights, freedom, and liberty" been harmed in the United States?

Please mention the minority, and explain how the majority has reduced its "rights, freedom, and liberty."
Click to expand...

Trayvon Martin
Michael Brown
Eric Garner
Tamir Rice
Eric Harris
Walter Scott
Jonathan Farrell
Sandra Bland
Samuel Dubose
Freddie Gray
NYPD officers using brutality against OWS protesters.
Segregation in the 40's, 50's and 60's.
The genocide against the Native Americans.
The current state of Native American land.
1 million Black people are locked in cages in this country–one half of all people in prisons or jails–which is an act of state violence.
Black queer and trans folks bearing a unique burden in a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of them like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes them and profits off of them is state violence; the fact that 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows is state violence; the fact that Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war is state violence; Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state-sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze them into boxes of normality defined by White supremacy is state violence.

There are many more atrocities to go over that define the inherently flawed nature of representative democracies.
 
Last edited:
It is an oligarchy. In an ideal system where the most competent people would be major electoral candidates, the odds of a brother of a former president, the wife of a former president and a idiot billionaire being major candidates at the same time would be astonishingly low.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Trayvon Martin
Michael Brown
Eric Garner
Tamir Rice
Eric Harris
Walter Scott
Jonathan Farrell
Sandra Bland
Samuel Dubose
Freddie Gray
NYPD officers using brutality against OWS protesters.
Segregation in the 40's, 50's and 60's.
The genocide against the Native Americans.
The current state of Native American land.
1 million Black people are locked in cages in this country–one half of all people in prisons or jails–which is an act of state violence.
Black queer and trans folks bearing a unique burden in a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of them like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes them and profits off of them is state violence; the fact that 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows is state violence; the fact that Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war is state violence; Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state-sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze them into boxes of normality defined by White supremacy is state violence.

There are many more atrocities to go over that define the inherently flawed nature of representative democracies.
Click to expand...

Trayvon Martin, Mitchel Brown, and Freddie Gray broke the law. I suspect the others did also.

Since the civil rights legislation was passed, and since additional efforts to help blacks have included increases in anti poverty spending, forced school busing, there have been increases in black social pathology. Black academic performance has increased little if at all, despite increased government spending on black education.
 
SmartCat said:
One occasionally hears, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."

What does this statement mean? Is it true? Should it be true?

In my opinion there is no contradiction between a government being a republic and a democracy. A republic is a government that is not ruled by an hereditary monarch. A democracy is a government where the rulers are elected by the voters. The UK is not a republic. It is a democracy, and the oldest one in fact. Most contemporary dictatorships are republics, but not democracies.

Also, where did the saying, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" originate? Who first said it?

From what I have been able to find out this saying originated with the John Birch Society. A significant percentage of the Republican Party did not accept the reforms of the New Deal. They hoped that President Eisenhower would reverse these reforms. Eisenhower did not, because he knew that they were popular.

When reactionaries came to agree that the reforms of the New Deal were popular with the voters, they invented this saying in order to deny that the will of the majority has moral and legal significance.

Or so it seems to me. :twocents:
Click to expand...

The country is a Republic that operates on the principle of representative democracy as the best avenue for organizing people into the legislative and electoral process. Those that say that the US is not a democracy are inherently wrong.
 
the u.s. was created as a republican form of government, article 4 section 4

if the u.s. were created as a direct democracy or representative democracy, it would have been created a democratic form of government.

madison makes it known the u.s. is not a democratic form but instead a republican form in federalist #10

with the 17 amendment to the constitution, this moved the u.s. to a more democratic form of government.

even the progressive president Woodrow Wilson, states in this own writings that the u.s. was not created to be a democratic form of government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the u.s. was created as a republican form of government, article 4 section 4

if the u.s. were created as a direct democracy or representative democracy, it would have been created a democratic form of government.

madison makes it known the u.s. is not a democratic form but instead a republican form in federalist #10

with the 17 amendment to the constitution, this moved the u.s. to a more democratic form of government.

even the progressive president Woodrow Wilson, states in this own writings that the u.s. was not created to be a democratic form of government.
Click to expand...

It was created as a democratic form of government, other wise we would not have a democratic form of government, but a House of Lords, which is the Republican agenda.
 
jet57 said:
It was created as a democratic form of government, other wise we would not have a democratic form of government, but a House of Lords, which is the Republican agenda.
Click to expand...

sorry no, the u.s was created as a republican form of government, article 4 section 4 of the constitution...it is a mixed government federalist #40

if it had been create as a democratic form, then the senate and president would have been elected by the people in the original constitution.

in a republican form of government, only has a element of democracy in it........the house of representatives
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
sorry no, the u.s was created as a republican form of government, article 4 section 4 of the constitution...it is a mixed government federalist #40

if it had been create as a democratic form, then the senate and president would have been elected by the people in the original constitution.

in a republican form of government, only has a element of democracy in it........the house of representatives
Click to expand...

Ernest, it's a "REPUBLIC" form of government, not "REPUBLICAN". Or if you prefer, "A Representative form of Government".

A Democracy form of government means that a majority winning vote would control the outcome for every issue or person voted for.

We have an "Electoral College System" for presidential elections. Some presidential candidates have won the popular vote (majority vote), but lost the electoral college votes and didn't make it to the White House. A pure Democracy form of government can't succeed. Eventually every type of minority possible would be wreaking havoc in the streets.
 
Removable Mind said:
Ernest, it's a "REPUBLIC" form of government, not "REPUBLICAN". Or if you prefer, "A Representative form of Government".

A Democracy form of government means that a majority winning vote would control the outcome for every issue or person voted for.

We have an "Electoral College System" for presidential elections. Some presidential candidates have won the popular vote (majority vote), but lost the electoral college votes and didn't make it to the White House. A pure Democracy form of government can't succeed. Eventually every type of minority possible would be wreaking havoc in the streets.
Click to expand...

it is a republic, true, but it was a republican form of government that WAS a mixed government

Section 4.

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence".

madison makes it clear in the federalist #10 that there is a republican form of government and a democratic form of government, with the democratic form of government full of factions combinations, meaning full of special interest which is a bad thing, ......where as a republican form has less faction.

in a mixed government , how politicians are elected is divided UP , the house by the people, the senate appointed by the state legislatures, and the president elected by the EC.

this prevents our politicians from being elected by 1 single group, because to have them elected by 1 single group would cause tyranny.

our president is elected by electors, chosen by the parties today, in early america the electors were chosen by the people, and the electors vote for the president the second week of December, and sent a letter to the house the first week of January informing them of the results of the vote.
 
Last edited:
SmartCat said:
One occasionally hears, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."

What does this statement mean? Is it true? Should it be true?

In my opinion there is no contradiction between a government being a republic and a democracy. A republic is a government that is not ruled by an hereditary monarch. A democracy is a government where the rulers are elected by the voters. The UK is not a republic. It is a democracy, and the oldest one in fact. Most contemporary dictatorships are republics, but not democracies.

Also, where did the saying, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" originate? Who first said it?

From what I have been able to find out this saying originated with the John Birch Society. A significant percentage of the Republican Party did not accept the reforms of the New Deal. They hoped that President Eisenhower would reverse these reforms. Eisenhower did not, because he knew that they were popular.

When reactionaries came to agree that the reforms of the New Deal were popular with the voters, they invented this saying in order to deny that the will of the majority has moral and legal significance.

Or so it seems to me. :twocents:
Click to expand...

History is the fight between govt and freedom. Freedom won its first huge and unpresidented victory when the Constitution was written. Jefferson said, "now there is something new under the sun" But, mankind slowly reverted to type from day one forward and govt has asserted itself again and again until we have today's very sad situation. Govt was bigger than ever when Obama took over. His only idea was to make bigger still. When that failed Sanders, an open communist, come up to make it far bigger still.

Jefferson:
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

Madison:
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
― James Madison

Jefferson:
the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."
 
SmartCat said:
One occasionally hears, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."

What does this statement mean? Is it true? Should it be true?

In my opinion there is no contradiction between a government being a republic and a democracy. A republic is a government that is not ruled by an hereditary monarch. A democracy is a government where the rulers are elected by the voters. The UK is not a republic. It is a democracy, and the oldest one in fact. Most contemporary dictatorships are republics, but not democracies.

Also, where did the saying, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" originate? Who first said it?

From what I have been able to find out this saying originated with the John Birch Society. A significant percentage of the Republican Party did not accept the reforms of the New Deal. They hoped that President Eisenhower would reverse these reforms. Eisenhower did not, because he knew that they were popular.

When reactionaries came to agree that the reforms of the New Deal were popular with the voters, they invented this saying in order to deny that the will of the majority has moral and legal significance.

Or so it seems to me. :twocents:
Click to expand...

The US was founded as a Republic that operates on Democratic principles. It's very often referred to as "our democracy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom