Who is the Party of freedom?

Paschendale said:

So... you don't want people voting at all? If that's not your point, then you're really not making yourself clear. How would these mysterious "power in 2" be chosen?

Click to expand...

actually i was clear, but you missed it...but that's ok, most people miss it, and here is the part missed........it is the word" FORM"

democracy was a FORM of government is vile, democracy as a ELEMENT of a republican FORM of government is good, its what the founders created.

in a republican form the people do not have all direct power via a direct vote, because to give the people all direct power will in time cause tyranny.

if you give one person all power, he will become a tyrant.

if you give a few people all power, they will become an oligarchy, and rule the people like serfs.

if you give the people all power, the will become the "mob" and rule over the 49%

so you split power into 2 half's...you give the people half, and you give the states half, since power is divided, and not just in 1 set of hands......its not possible to be tyrannical.

by having power split, it makes it difficult for lobbyist to control government, because the two half's, have their own separate interest.

the only way legislation can pass congress, the interest of the two half's , have to come together to work in the interest of the people and the states....representing the union as a whole.

the people are given the house to represent them and their interest and to prevent an aristocracy from taking over America, and the senate elected by the state legislatures is created to prevent democracy from taking over america, because the founders do not want majority rule.

so you have the people with direct power and the state legislatures with direct power.........and since the states legislature are elected by the people, the people control the senate INDIRECTLY.

people like Hitler come to power because the people can be seduced, beguiled and lured into things they should not do.....by splitting power it does not matter it the people are seduced beguiled or lured by men who seek power and control,..because the senate in not in the people hands, its in the states hands a different power.

that different power prevents tyrants or special interest controlling our government.

divided power is a check and balance of government.........by removing divided power........ special interest has taken over government under many names.

solletica said:

That wouldn't be you--a "libertarian right", someone who supports (or consistently votes for pols that support)

1) Making it illegal for a business in the US to hire anyone he/she wants in the world at any time, regardless of the hiree's residency status.

2) Shielding oil and coal cos. from liability for the damages they cause, so that they can create more jobs

3) Waging endless war in the Middle East

Click to expand...

solletica said:

Because support for those 3 things (and others) are what it means to call oneself "Right." If you don't support those things, you'd just call yourself "Libertarian." A genuine Libertarian supports

1) Open borders (no restriction on hiring or any other voluntary transactions across borders).

2) No legal liability limits.

3) National military (or militias) funded solely through voluntary contributions from individuals and private organizations, not taxes or public debt.

However, that's too much for some folks--it makes them look un-American, so they add the word "Right" to their political affiliation to clarify that they don't want to go that far.

Click to expand...

1....i do not support open borders, because the have a 1924 law against such action.

2 ...as a libertarian, property rights are #1, if you damage the property of another person or persons, then law must takes it coarse, and if found guilty, you have to repair the damage/pay.

3 i don't support American wars for nation building, only when the u.s. is threaten, it people in danger do i support war, and it must be declared by congress.....taxes have nothing to do with the missions government take son.

libertarian-right for me means.........state powers.

ernst barkmann said:

actually i was clear, but you missed it...but that's ok, most people miss it, and here is the part missed........it is the word" FORM"

Click to expand...

You might want to try being more descriptive then, if most people don't understand what you mean.

so you split power into 2 half's...you give the people half, and you give the states half, since power is divided, and not just in 1 set of hands......its not possible to be tyrannical.

Click to expand...

In this country, we split power into a lot more than two pieces. We have federal, state, county, and city/town, all with specific areas of governance. We split almost all of those into at least two branches that can check each other. Then we have ascending tiers that can check lower tiers, but have more restricted areas in which they can exercise power. And then we have a judiciary to further check all of those tiers. And the people determine all the officials who make all of those decisions via election (or electing those who appoint them).

Your notion that there is simply "the people", which you equate to the federal government for some reason, and the states, is very uninformed. Our government has many more pieces and checks and balances than your ideal system, yet you proclaim that splitting power is necessary. Most of the time it simply sounds like you want state governments to have unimpeded control. And, contrary to your assertions, nobody wants to concentrate all power in the federal. A lot of us just don't let the states violate the federal constitution., which includes issues like civil rights.

So, in conclusion, our government already has everything you want and more. Except for the whole "state supremacy" thing, which would be a terrible idea since states have general police power and the federal is often needed to rein them in when they state trampling on minorities. Which party is it that wants the unchecked states making all the decisions again?

SocialDemocrat said:

I prefer the Green Party, but there is no right answer, per se. Voted Free Bacon.

How about the Greens? Or Socialism & Liberation? There are plenty of social democratic, socialist, and communist parties here; they are simply kept out of government by the two-party system.

Click to expand...

I thought about the greens, but they're ultimately too small. We really only have two parties. Even a movement like the Tea Party, which aimed to be a third party, has only been able to operate within the Republican party. The Green Party likewise has to operate as a wing of the Democratic party. I certainly wish it weren't the case, but it is.

rocket88 said:

After the warning, I couldn't reply in thread. But I did think the topic deserved it's own:






Of course the only people I've heard say that are hardcore Dems. Just like hard core Repubs will say the Republicans are (cue Nick denying that he's a Republican even though he never says anything but their party line).

Who is it, then?

Click to expand...

I don't tow the republican party line - democrats just absolutely disgust me with their totalitarian attitude..

For example they have been attacking republicans for alleged "campaign violations" painting these republicans as evil criminals while they themselves do the same and even WORSE not to mention they're trying to steal an NBA team from an owner because he said some subjective things..... Oh and then you have the Redskins - trying to FORCE a team to change their name...

Oh and that is what I have only read in the last 15 minutes on the Chicago Tribune.

Democrats are CRIMINAL - not just sore losers but CRIMINALS....

Don't confuse my libertarianism and my hate for democrats and progressives with towing a republican line..... I don't like many republicans either but I don't attack on the basis of frugal bull**** and in the name of authoritarian politics.

Paschendale said:

You might want to try being more descriptive then, if most people don't understand what you mean.



In this country, we split power into a lot more than two pieces. We have federal, state, county, and city/town, all with specific areas of governance. We split almost all of those into at least two branches that can check each other. Then we have ascending tiers that can check lower tiers, but have more restricted areas in which they can exercise power. And then we have a judiciary to further check all of those tiers. And the people determine all the officials who make all of those decisions via election (or electing those who appoint them).

Your notion that there is simply "the people", which you equate to the federal government for some reason, and the states, is very uninformed. Our government has many more pieces and checks and balances than your ideal system, yet you proclaim that splitting power is necessary. Most of the time it simply sounds like you want state governments to have unimpeded control. And, contrary to your assertions, nobody wants to concentrate all power in the federal. A lot of us just don't let the states violate the federal constitution., which includes issues like civil rights.

So, in conclusion, our government already has everything you want and more. Except for the whole "state supremacy" thing, which would be a terrible idea since states have general police power and the federal is often needed to rein them in when they state trampling on minorities. Which party is it that wants the unchecked states making all the decisions again?



I thought about the greens, but they're ultimately too small. We really only have two parties. Even a movement like the Tea Party, which aimed to be a third party, has only been able to operate within the Republican party. The Green Party likewise has to operate as a wing of the Democratic party. I certainly wish it weren't the case, but it is.

Click to expand...

we split power , but we have federalism also, republican government has many layers of separations, that is why it is a higher form of government and more complex then a democratic form of government.

we however do not have a true form of republican government, that was done away with the 17th...

returning to a classical republic of like Rome,the one the founders created, will fix many problems, but not all

Paschendale said:

You might want to try being more descriptive then, if most people don't understand what you mean.



In this country, we split power into a lot more than two pieces. We have federal, state, county, and city/town, all with specific areas of governance. We split almost all of those into at least two branches that can check each other. Then we have ascending tiers that can check lower tiers, but have more restricted areas in which they can exercise power. And then we have a judiciary to further check all of those tiers. And the people determine all the officials who make all of those decisions via election (or electing those who appoint them).

Your notion that there is simply "the people", which you equate to the federal government for some reason, and the states, is very uninformed. Our government has many more pieces and checks and balances than your ideal system, yet you proclaim that splitting power is necessary. Most of the time it simply sounds like you want state governments to have unimpeded control. And, contrary to your assertions, nobody wants to concentrate all power in the federal. A lot of us just don't let the states violate the federal constitution., which includes issues like civil rights.

So, in conclusion, our government already has everything you want and more. Except for the whole "state supremacy" thing, which would be a terrible idea since states have general police power and the federal is often needed to rein them in when they state trampling on minorities. Which party is it that wants the unchecked states making all the decisions again?



I thought about the greens, but they're ultimately too small. We really only have two parties. Even a movement like the Tea Party, which aimed to be a third party, has only been able to operate within the Republican party. The Green Party likewise has to operate as a wing of the Democratic party. I certainly wish it weren't the case, but it is.

Click to expand...

The federal government is evil ALEX - ironic considering your avatar -- maybe not so much tho considering in the movie ALEX and his gang run around doing whatever the **** they want like anarchists until the federal government gets their hands on him and then "reform" him into madness and his totalitarian cop friends try to kill him.

Sounds like a socialist utopia to me.

Well, I'll be damned..
Rhubarb....or its a ridiculous question..
The people here are smarter than the "man on the street", no question.

ernst barkmann said:

actually i was clear, but you missed it...but that's ok, most people miss it, and here is the part missed........it is the word" FORM"

democracy was a FORM of government is vile, democracy as a ELEMENT of a republican FORM of government is good, its what the founders created.

in a republican form the people do not have all direct power via a direct vote, because to give the people all direct power will in time cause tyranny.

if you give one person all power, he will become a tyrant.

if you give a few people all power, they will become an oligarchy, and rule the people like serfs.

if you give the people all power, the will become the "mob" and rule over the 49%

so you split power into 2 half's...you give the people half, and you give the states half, since power is divided, and not just in 1 set of hands......its not possible to be tyrannical.

by having power split, it makes it difficult for lobbyist to control government, because the two half's, have their own separate interest.

the only way legislation can pass congress, the interest of the two half's , have to come together to work in the interest of the people and the states....representing the union as a whole.

the people are given the house to represent them and their interest and to prevent an aristocracy from taking over America, and the senate elected by the state legislatures is created to prevent democracy from taking over america, because the founders do not want majority rule.

so you have the people with direct power and the state legislatures with direct power.........and since the states legislature are elected by the people, the people control the senate INDIRECTLY.

people like Hitler come to power because the people can be seduced, beguiled and lured into things they should not do.....by splitting power it does not matter it the people are seduced beguiled or lured by men who seek power and control,..because the senate in not in the people hands, its in the states hands a different power.

that different power prevents tyrants or special interest controlling our government.

divided power is a check and balance of government.........by removing divided power........ special interest has taken over government under many names.

Click to expand...

The democratic republic is evil - it has the means of becoming a totalitarian form of government is evil.... However democracy is the best system of government on the planet.

Mr.Nick said:

The democratic republic is evil - it has the means of becoming a totalitarian form of government is evil.... However democracy is the best system of government on the planet.

Click to expand...

mr nick, under the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron....it does not exist....the interpretation of republic since the founders to the modern day has changed...

america was created on the classical republic of Rome.....the roman republic and america government structure of the founders are the exact same!

ernst barkmann said:

mr nick, under the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron....it does not exist....the interpretation of republic since the founders to the modern day has changed...

america was created on the classical republic of Rome.....the roman republic and america government structure of the founders are the exact same!

Click to expand...

I understand that.

I believe in limited direct democracy - for example ballot referendums - like we saw with prop8 which the government absolutely destroyed...

These politicians are tyrants - our present system of government is tyranny...

Mr.Nick said:

I understand that.

I believe in limited direct democracy - for example ballot referendums - like we saw with prop8 which the government absolutely destroyed...

These politicians are tyrants - our present system of government is tyranny...

Click to expand...

well mr nick the founders hated democracy as a form of government, they hate referendum, and initiatives.

because it leads to majority rule, something unconstitutional under the constitution, but the USSC does not uphold in article 4 section 4

it is tyranny, because we no longer have a republican form of government.

you will find it is democratic forms of government.......along if monarchy and oligarchy, which are tyrannical

If you think about it our government is actually ruled by 9 Supreme Court Justices...

The 535 in Congress can pass whatever the hell they want but when challenged it comes down to 9.

Our supreme court should be severely expanded - possibly to 101 - and they should not sit for life - they should be democratically elected.

ernst barkmann said:

well mr nick the founders hated democracy as a form of government, they hate referendum, and initiatives.

because it leads to majority rule, something unconstitutional under the constitution, but the USSC does not uphold in article 4 section 4

it is tyranny, because we no longer have a republican form of government.

you will find it is democratic forms of government.......along if monarchy and oligarchy, which are tyrannical

Click to expand...

What form of democracy are you talking about? direct democracy?

Some did hate direct democracy because they believed it would lead to absolute anarchy, however I do understand their reasoning in the democratic republic system - however that system has been abused and manipulated in ways they could have never have imagined (gerrymandering for example.)

I believe that the founders and framers believed that the solution to the problems of a democratic republic was the Bill of Rights and never imagined it would have been challenged by our own government.

Mr.Nick said:

What form of democracy are you talking about? direct democracy?

Some did hate direct democracy because they believed it would lead to absolute anarchy, however I do understand their reasoning in the democratic republic system - however that system has been abused and manipulated in ways they could have never have imagined (gerrymandering for example.)

Click to expand...

referendums and initiatives are direct democracy of the people......illegal under the constitution...article 4 section 4.....but not enforced.

democracy as a form, is a government were the people have all direct power....they vote for the officials.

in American government of the founders, the house is the only democratic vote...the senate and president are non democratic votes, making america government a republican form, a "mixed government"...federalist 40

in the founders day, no such thing as a democratic republic existed.......it cannot be

the term republic mean a roman government.....however after the french revolution [a democratic movement] the french called France a republic......however it was not but , it stuck however and today, republic means today anything other than a monarchy.....because the French threw out the monarchy.

the people's republic of china, USSR, France a democrat socialist republic...the founders would shake their heads, and are these people stupid!

Mr.Nick said:

I believe that the founders and framers believed that the solution to the problems of a democratic republic was the Bill of Rights and never imagined it would have been challenged by our own government.

Click to expand...

the bill of rights are restrictions placed on government as added protection of the people recognized rights.

the preamble to the bill of rights, tells us what they are.

ernst barkmann said:

referendums and initiatives are direct democracy of the people......illegal under the constitution...article 4 section 4.....but not enforced.

democracy as a form, is a government were the people have all direct power....they vote for the officials.

in American government of the founders, the house is the only democratic vote...the senate and president are non democratic votes, making america government a republican form, a "mixed government"...federalist 40

in the founders day, no such thing as a democratic republic existed.......it cannot be

the term republic mean a roman government.....however after the french revolution [a democratic movement] the french called France a republic......however it was not but , it stuck however and today, republic means today anything other than a monarchy.....because the French threw out the monarchy.

the people's republic of china, USSR, France a democrat socialist republic...the founders would shake their heads, and are these people stupid!

Click to expand...

Referendums and direct democracy are completely legal via the Tenth Amendment.

It sounds to me like you want some form of totalitarian socialism.

ernst barkmann said:

the bill of rights are restrictions placed on government as added protection of the people recognized rights.

the preamble to the bill of rights, tells us what they are.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right here, but wrong in other posts.

However that doesn't change the fact the Bill of Rights was put in place to curb anarchy and tyranny because of a democratic republic system of government.

although George Washington was not our first president, there was a conspiracy to make him "king" and when he found this out he was so disgusted by it he had people thrown in prison.... Washington thought it was epic tyranny and did not like it one bit.

I forget his exact words but they were absolutely epic when he found out about the scheme and addressed it but he emphasized democracy quite a bit.

Mr.Nick said:

Referendums and direct democracy are completely legal via the Tenth Amendment.

It sounds to me like you want some form of totalitarian socialism.

Click to expand...

no, they are not because that would make the state government democratic.

all state government are to be republican in their form, ..it is the right of the people to CHANGE their form of government, however it it is changed to any thing other then republican it cannot be part of the union and must leave.

this from a "view of the Constitution" published in 1825 and 1829...by William Rawle taught at west point. from 1825 to 1829

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)

The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_4s13.html

democracy is the road to socialism-- Karl Marx

democracy is indispensable to socialism - Lenin

you can see why i am a anti-democratic form of government guy!

Mr.Nick said:

I don't tow the republican party line - democrats just absolutely disgust me with their totalitarian attitude..

For example they have been attacking republicans for alleged "campaign violations" painting these republicans as evil criminals while they themselves do the same and even WORSE not to mention they're trying to steal an NBA team from an owner because he said some subjective things..... Oh and then you have the Redskins - trying to FORCE a team to change their name...

Oh and that is what I have only read in the last 15 minutes on the Chicago Tribune.

Democrats are CRIMINAL - not just sore losers but CRIMINALS....

Don't confuse my libertarianism and my hate for democrats and progressives with towing a republican line..... I don't like many republicans either but I don't attack on the basis of frugal bull**** and in the name of authoritarian politics.

Click to expand...

So totalitarian Democrats bother you, but not totalitarian Republicans? That's the very definition of a Republican.

Which Democrats exactly are stealing an NBA franchise, and why do you care about Donald Sterling? Maybe they should just dig up some evidence that he's gay and then you'd applaud the NBA's freedom not to associate with him.

Jredbaron96 said:

The Gay Nazi Party.

Click to expand...

Gay Witches for Abortion.

ernst barkmann said:

no, they are not because that would make the state government democratic.

all state government are to be republican in their form, ..it is the right of the people to CHANGE their form of government, however it it is changed to any thing other then republican it cannot be part of the union and must leave.

this from a "view of the Constitution" published in 1825 and 1829...by William Rawle taught at west point. from 1825 to 1829

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)

The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.


Article 4, Section 4: William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)

democracy is the road to socialism-- Karl Marx

democracy is indispensable to socialism - Lenin

you can see why i am a anti-democratic form of government guy!

Click to expand...

Where do we find a definitive definition of Republic?

Article 4 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.

The problem with discussions like this is everything is open to enterpretation. A blog from Marquette University Law School disagrees with you about referendums being against Art 4 Sec 4.

Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog» Blog Archive » A Republican Form of Government

If I read it properly all the author thinks it does is prevent states from choosing monarchy.

The Peace and Freedom Party, obviously. It's in their name.

Amandi said:

Where do we find a definitive definition of Republic?

Article 4 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.

The problem with discussions like this is everything is open to enterpretation. A blog from Marquette University Law School disagrees with you about referendums being against Art 4 Sec 4.

Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog» Blog Archive » A Republican Form of Government

If I read it properly all the author thinks it does is prevent states from choosing monarchy.

Click to expand...

lets start with republic in the days of the founders, a republic meant to the founders a " mixed government", of divided power.

Madison states in federalist 40, that the constitutional convention created a mixed government.

The Federalist No. 40 - On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained

New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Polybius a Greek who is considered to be the creator of mixed government is referenced by Madison in the federalist 63

Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers

what is a mixed government.:

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

in our American government, the founders did not create a system of government with the people electing the senate or the president, these are non democratic votes, while they did create a democratic vote for the house of representatives by the people.

our system of government is a republican FORM of government, with a single democratic element,..... the house of representatives.

a direct democracy or a representative democracy would be a democratic FORM.......and the founders hated democratic forms of government because they are very factious [full of special interest], that they chose a republican form over the democratic form in federalist 10 by Madison.

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.

a republican form of government divided power into two half's, giving the states power of the senate and the people, power in the house, by having divided power no single power, the states or the people can become tyrannical because of that division.

back to the author who was G. Washington's DA for the state of PENN.,

in every state constitution the people have the RIGHT to abolish or alter their state government, in doing this they are able to form any type of government they chose, however it they are to remain in the union, they cant relinquish there republican form, if they do, they are not allowed to be a part of the union.

referendums, and initiatives on ballots are direct votes of the people, they are direct democracy, the founders are dead set against this because it allows for majority rule in law making, and the founders wanted to avoid that same sort of thing of the Athenians of Greece.

with referendums when have seen things like the creation of smoking bans on individual business, with the public determining the business's policy, this is in direct conflict with property rights.

Rawle--Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

RAWLE states that the people can expunge a representative form of government, and......which could create a monarchy.

the idea of a republican form of government over a democratic form is, that legislative law making decisions be made by more then 1 single entity with power, ...why?

because 1 person with all power will become a tyrant.

a few people with all power will become an oligarchy

and it you give the people, all power, they will become the "mob" and rule by majority over the 49%, taking away their liberty.

but by dividing power, no single power has all the power to become tyrannical

referendums and initiatives came into America under what is know as the Oregon system of the late 1800's...when America moved away from a republic to a more democratic form of government. and the 17th amendment.