• 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!

DEMOCRACY and REPUBLIC[W:172]

As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

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."
 
federalist 40 ...states the founders created mixed government

the constitution states, we have republican form of government.



MIXED GOVERNMENT BELOW:

The constitution states the house will be elected by the people.

The constitution states the senate will be appointed by the state legislatures.

The constitution states the president will be elected by the electoral college......or electors of the states

so what? It is irrelevant what one person interprets in an attempt to gain a political end in an act of salesmanship.

What is the main point of this call out thread Barkmann?

Is it your contention that the 17th Amendment renders the idea that America must have a republican form of government null and void?
 
so what? It is irrelevant what one person interprets in an attempt to gain a political end in an act of salesmanship.


the Constitution lays out how officials are elected.

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.

you can stay in your denial, and believe in democracy....but over whelming evidence, has shown you to be wrong in what you believe.

accept it and move on!
 
terrific since it is not. What is your point?


my point is...........because you respond to me of what i was posting..........and that is why i posted that.

if you are going to forget your rebuttals to me.........don't ask me questions of why i post things..........
 
the Constitution lays out how officials are elected.

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.

you can stay in your denial, and believe in democracy....but over whelming evidence, has shown you to be wrong in what you believe.

accept it and move on!

The Constitution does not mention the term MIXED GOVERNMENT. It ensures a REPUBLIC which is what we have today. Do you believe otherwise?
 
my point is...........because you respond to me of what i was posting..........and that is why i posted that.

if you are going to forget your rebuttals to me.........don't ask me questions of why i post things..........

So this entire call out thread is so you could respond to me criticizing you for not identifying or defining your terms?

You are really that petty that you would do that?

Amazing!!!!! :doh:shock::roll:

Go back and read what you wrote to end you OP - your statement so important you had to repeat it

to repeat again, if our government is republican by Madison's own words

What balderdash. Our government is NOT a republican one because of anything Madison said. It is a republican form because the people elect representatives who run the government for them as mandated in our Constitution .

You really need to get a clue about these things.
 
Last edited:
Haymarket said
What are your definitions of a REPUBLIC and of a DEMOCRACY?

Your response:


In the former, the leaders must govern based on the constitution. In the latter, mob rule.

Democracy = Mob rule? You undercut any argument you are trying to make when you throw out silly statements like that.
Are you say Canada is run by mob rule? Britain? Australia? Geesh.
 
Haymarket said


Your response:




Democracy = Mob rule? You undercut any argument you are trying to make when you throw out silly statements like that.
Are you say Canada is run by mob rule? Britain? Australia? Geesh.

Sadly , the entire MOB RULE nonsense is a repeated theme among the far right who have learned to hate the will of the people as a knee jerk reflex action because they know their extremist ideas do not have public support.

Its pretty simple really - the American people do not like them so they have contempt for the American people.
 
A democracy is any system in which the people vote. A republic is a system with a non-hereditary head of state.

China is a republic but not a democracy. The UK is a democracy but not a republic.

These two systems are not mutually exclusive, and the vast majority of nations are democratic republics. To equate one or the other with a specific variation of such system is pedantic and dishonest.
 
Instead of the 3 elements of mixed government, we are down to only 2 elements now.

I've read that some folks consider the SCOTUS to be something of a modern day manifestation of an aristocracy where "the best" (those chosen individually, from among the many, appointed and confirmed by the elected) are appointed to the Court and then govern in a de facto sense by fiat through judicial activism (ie. "legislating from the bench").

While it's not necessarily what the Founders had in mind (at all) it does sort of "breath new life" into the idea of a mixed government.
 
The 1st two are parliamentary systems with monarchs, the last a federal constitutional monarchy. Please don't name examples with monarchs, you reveal your ignorance.

That reply implies that you believe that a monarch holds some kind of political power in these countries. If you are going to reveal your ignorance, I suggest you do not do so in the same post where you are attempting to call someone else out for the same.

It makes you look a little silly. If you need any other pointers I would be pleased to help.
 
A Classical Republic, is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

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

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


OUR AMERICAN FOUNDERS SPEAKING OF OUR ......MIXED CONSTITUTION
.


As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

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.
 
In order to discuss the concept of the mixed constitution in antiquity,5 it is important first to understand what is meant by a simple constitution. In Book VI of his Histories (6.4.6-11; cf. 6.3.5), the ancient Greek historian Polybius outlines three simple forms of constitution--each categorized according to the number of its ruling body: monarchy (rule by the one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and democracy (rule by the many).6 According to the historian, these three simple constitutions each degenerate, over time, into their respective corrupt forms (tyranny, oligarchy, and mob-rule) by a cycle of gradual decline which he calls anacyclosis or “political revolution” (6.9.10: politeiw=n a)naku/klwsij; 6.4.7-11; cf. 6.3.9). 7

For monarchy, he claims, inevitably degrades into tyranny. Tyranny is then replaced by aristocracy, which in turn degrades into oligarchy. Oligarchy then is overthrown by democracy, which ultimately falls into its own corresponding distortion, mob-rule (or ochlocracy). In Polybius’ analysis, the cycle then starts up again (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) since anarchy inevitably creates a void that some new demagogue will fill.8 'Anaku/klwsij, the sliding from one form of constitution into another, is unavoidable because of the inherent weakness of each simple form of constitution.9

The catalyst for the decay in each simple form, Polybius says (6.7.7), is hereditary succession--the automatic handing down of the privileges of a particular form of government to future generations without their ever having to internalize for themselves the discipline necessary to maintain those privileges.

Each of the three simple forms of constitution serves well enough at its inception, since founder kings arise out of their very excellence of character, aristocracies (by definition at least) form from the noblest of society, and democracies too embrace the highest ideals at the outset. The problem lies not with the initial impetus that forms these governments but with the fact that they each suffer entropy, or internal decay.

Polybius explains his theory in fuller detail, describing the mechanism by which hereditary succession weakens the state. When the crown is inherited generation upon generation, kings are no longer then chosen by excellence of leadership but by accident of birth. When monarchs are born to privilege, they no longer have any incentive to serve the state (since their privileges are no longer tied to their performance as leaders). They eventually expend their daily energies in merely fulfilling the desires of their own appetites. Having become arrogant and self-serving, the last in the line of tyrants is pushed aside by those who are close enough to the throne to notice his corruption, namely the members of the aristocracy (Polyb. 6.8.1).

They, in turn, serve the state well initially. After all, these were the nobles so offended by the king’s excesses that principle drove them to take action against him. Unfortunately, here again, when the grandchildren of these nobles inherit position, they are ill equipped to handle the power of rule (since they were born to privilege and identify less and less with the problems of the common man). The aristocracy then degrades proportionally by each generation into an oligarchy, just as the kings degenerated into tyrants (6.8.5). The oligarchs then are banished or killed by the people, who finally assume the responsibility of ruling themselves.

The people also govern well, at first. As long as there are any living who remember the days of oppression, they guard their liberties with a jealous vigor. Nevertheless, as future generations inherit the same privileges of democracy as their ancestors, yet without effort, they cease to cherish those benefits (6.9.5). Eventually individuals arise among them who, seeking pre-eminence, cater to the creature comforts of the masses, thereby hoping to win their favor. People sell cheap those liberties that have cost them nothing personally. Once the masses accept these demagogues, the cycle of tyranny begins again. This is the cycle Polybius calls a)naku/klwsij.
 
Polybius believes that Republican Rome has avoided this endless cycle by establishing a mixed constitution, a single state with elements of all three forms of government at once: monarchy (in the form of its elected executives, the consuls), aristocracy (as represented by the Senate), and democracy (in the form of the popular assemblies, such as the Comitia Centuriata).10 In a mixed constitution, each of the three branches of government checks the strengths and balances the weaknesses of the other two. Since absolute rule rests in no single body but rather is shared among the three, the corrupting influence of unchecked power is abated and stasis is achieved.11

Polybius is not alone in his praise of mixed government. Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero all stress the supremacy of a mixed constitution

The fact that Polybius’ theories and the American system share similarities will not suffice to prove, more than circumstantially, that the U.S. Constitution is founded upon ancient theories. The second focus of this paper, therefore, will be to establish whether the Founding Fathers actually knew and read Polybius.

Steeped as they were in the classics, “the Founding Fathers,” Saul K. Padover asserts, “were educationally and spiritually the children of the antiquity.”23 Bernard Bailyn too proclaims, “knowledge of classical authors was universal among colonists with any degree of education.”24 Gummere adds, “there was seldom an epoch when the leading men were so imbued with the classical tradition.”25 In recognition of this fact, Richard (130) concludes,

The founders had access to every level of this western tradition of mixed government theory. Hence it was only natural that, when confronted by unprecedented parliamentary taxation during the 1760s and 1770s, they should turn to the most ancient and revered of political theories to explain this perplexing phenomenon. Patriot leaders such as Richard Henry Lee, Samuel Adams, and John Adams ascribed the new tyranny to a degeneration of the mixture of the English constitution.

Clearly the Founding Fathers were familiar with the classics generally, but did they know about Polybius specifically?26 That the text of Polybius’ Histories itself was available to the Founders is of no doubt, as M. N. S. Sellers attests,27

Americans understood the Roman constitution primarily through the writings of Polybius, readily available in four recent printings, and after [January of] 1787 in excerpts from Spelman’s translation, reproduced in John Adam’s Defense of the Constitutions of the United States of America.

Thomas Jefferson, a fervent supporter of mixed government,28 had numerous editions of Polybius’ Histories in his personal library.29

James Madison also knew Polybius’ work. He cites the historian in The Federalist Papers No. 63 and devotes nearly the entirety of No. 47 to the separation of powers:33

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

Adams (Works, 4.328) fully embraces the classical division of simple constitutions into monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.45 In the introduction to chapter six of his A Defense of the Constitutions, Adams (Works, 4.435) clearly links Polybius with his purpose:46

It is no accident, then, that so many who gathered at Philadelphia to declare independence and a decade later to draft a constitution were men who had apprenticed themselves to Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero, and who could debate at length on the various constitutional forms of the classical world before they chose one for the new American nation. We owe our very existence as a people in great part to classical learning.

Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers
 
Gene Owens
Constitutional Law
Back to Basics I

What is the Constitution? The Constitution is a contract. The Constitution/contract contains seven short articles, twenty-seven amendments and the Declaration of Independence is tied to the Constitution under article seven. The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 by delegates from twelve colonies. Rhode Island, the thirteenth colony, signed later.
In Article 4 Section 4 the Constitution directs: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government,. . ." This article is not referring to any party. There is no party system outlined in the Constitution either in fact or in principle. The word republican is referring to the word republic, which comes from the Latin words res publica; res meaning thing and publica meaning public, the public thing is the law.
One of the most misunderstood and therefore harmful beliefs, to our freedoms, is that millions of American People falsely believe America is a democracy, with rule by majority vote. Article IV Section 4 clearly guarantees every State shall be a republic, there is nothing to argue about. Because Article IV Section 4 defines our form of government as a republic it will remain a republic until an Article V amendment changes that fact. Republic means to rule by law and in America our law is Constitutional Law. All of our representatives take an Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution and therefore Constitutional Law. When you read the Constitution you are actually studying Constitutional Law.
The misunderstanding, that our form of government is a democracy has been intentional to take freedoms, not to give freedoms. In reality our Founders set up a mixed-constitution, to check the powers of government, with elements of different forms of government in it. We have elements of monarchy or rule by one vested in the president to veto bills and to give pardons. We have elements of oligarchy or rule by few vested in federal and state legislatures to make laws. We have elements of democracy vested in the People to elect our representatives. However, all of these different forms of government must stay within the boundary (pale) and understanding (ken) of the republic, rule by law, or their actions are null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
Article VI Clause 2 directs that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all treaties and laws must be made within the pale and ken of the Constitution. This same article and clause also directs that all judges in every State shall be bound by the Constitution.
Another interesting fact is that the Constitution is a document or perfect distribution or perfect equipoise; meaning one clause cannot and must not be read as if to stand alone. When our representatives plan a redistribution of the Peoples money, for any reason, under pretense of the commerce clause or the welfare clause they must also look to Article I Section 1 and Section 8, the 5th Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
Article I Section 1 does not allow Congress to do anything that is not an enumerated power; Section 8 list all the powers Congress can act upon; the 5th Amendment forbids the taking of the Peoples money (property) without just compensation; under the 9th Amendment the government has no no right to take property and under the 10th Amendment they have no power to take property.
The Declaration of Independence is not considered law; however, it does point out certain very important issues, such as: our Rights are unalienable and that our Rights are endowed by a Creator. It is fashionable among some Americans today to disregard this statement. To declare that there is no proof of a Creator; however, no man can disprove the existence of a Creator. The words unalienable and inalienable both mean that which cannot be changed, not by majority vote or by a dictator. This statement also directs that are our Rights are endowed by a Creator and not by man.
Clearly our Founding Fathers gave each of us religious freedom to believe as we chose; however, their point was not in what you personally believe but in the fact that man did not create existence. That Rights come from Nature and Nature's God, as written by Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence. No government can control Nature and change the course of our unalienable Rights.

U.S. Constitution
 
A Classical Republic, is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

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

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


OUR AMERICAN FOUNDERS SPEAKING OF OUR ......MIXED CONSTITUTION
.


As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

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.

1 - too bad for your argument the Constitution DID NOT specify that the USA have a CLASSICAL REPUBLIC FROM OF GOVERNMENT resulting in MIXED GOVERNMENT. If it did - you might have an argument. Because it does not, its a strawman and is irrelevant.

2- The opinion of any individual - be it Adams or Henry or Madison or anybody else on what mixed government means is also irrelevant to the central question: does the USA have a republican form of government? Since the answer is yes - all this posturing about mixed government and what you think it is in relation to a classical republic is irrelevant and is not even worth the utilitarian value of a five pound bag of common garden manure.

HERR BARKMANN: all this comes down to one thing and only one thing - does the USA today have a republican form of government as specified by the US Constitution? There is no doubt that the answer is yes because the US has a government of peoples representatives chosen by them to administer and run the government for the people. That is the perfect definition of a republic.

from google definition

re·pub·lic
riˈpəblik/
noun
1.
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

re·pub·lic noun \ri-ˈpə-blik\
: a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen

Full Definition of REPUBLIC

1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Each one of those standard dictionary definitions fits the USA to a tee.
It might not be the type of republic you prefer - but thats just tough.
 
Last edited:
1 - too bad for your argument the Constitution DID NOT specify that the USA have a CLASSICAL REPUBLIC FROM OF GOVERNMENT resulting in MIXED GOVERNMENT. If it did - you might have an argument. Because it does not, its a strawman and is irrelevant.

2- The opinion of any individual - be it Adams or Henry or Madison or anybody else on what mixed government means is also irrelevant to the central question: does the USA have a republican form of government? Since the answer is yes - all this posturing about mixed government and what you think it is in relation to a classical republic is irrelevant and is not even worth the utilitarian value of a five pound bag of common garden manure.

HERR BARKMANN: all this comes down to one thing and only one thing - does the USA today have a republican form of government as specified by the US Constitution? There is no doubt that the answer is yes because the US has a government of peoples representatives chosen by them to administer and run the government for the people. That is the perfect definition of a republic.

from google definition



Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com



Republic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



Each one of those standard dictionary definitions fits the USA to a tee.
It might not be the type of republic you prefer - but thats just tough.


i know you wish to live in the world of [deny everything], because of you Statist attitude.

you can deny what the founders say, what the federalist papers say.

how the constitution structured the government into a mixed government.

but the truth is there, ......only people who wish to deny INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, ana believe in a collective society such as you, wish to try to squash that truth.
 
Last edited:
In Polybius’ view, the Roman system was superior to any of these simple constitutions because it blended the monarchical element (represented by the annually-elected consuls), the aristocratic element (represented by the Senate), and the democratic element (represented by the popular assemblies), into a harmonious system of governmental checks and balances (cf. 6.3.7-8). It is this aspect of Polybius’ political theory, his conception of the so-called “mixed constitution,” that has made him such an important figure in the tradition of western political thought. In the United States, as a reading of the Federalist Papers indicates, the evolution of the political theory of the “Founding Fathers” was indebted to Polybius.

In 1787 John Adams,arguing against proponents of single-assembly governments, underscored the point when he wrote in his A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,Letter XXX, “I wish to assemble together the opinions and reasonings of philosophers, politicians and historians, who have taken the most extensive views of men and societies, whose characters are deservedly revered, and whose writings were in the contemplation of those who framed the American constitutions. It will not be contested that all these characters are united in Polybius.”Indeed, Arnaldo Momigliano suggested that due to his deep influence on early American political thinkers, Polybius should be considered as an honorary founder of the Constitution of the United States of America.
 
i know you wish to live in the world of [deny everything], because of you Statist attitude.

you can deny what the founders say, what the federalist papers say.

how the constitution structured the government into a mixed government.

but the truth is there, ......only people who wish to deny INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, ana believe in a collective society such as you, wish to try to squash that truth.

It does not matter what the individuals you label as founders said. What matters is what the Constitution says. And what is says is that we have a republican form of government. And the definitions I provided combined with the actual structure of representative government we have show beyond any doubt, beyond any argument, and beyond any dispute that we have a republican form of government.

It really does not matter if you like it or not or if some long dead person had opinions about mixed government because the Constitution does not mention it. The federalist papers can be used for toilet tissue for all the actual governmental value they have next to the actual Constitution.

For you to pretend otherwise should be equal to the capital crime in the area of intellectual fraud.
 
In Polybius’ view, the Roman system was superior to any of these simple constitutions because it blended the monarchical element (represented by the annually-elected consuls), the aristocratic element (represented by the Senate), and the democratic element (represented by the popular assemblies), into a harmonious system of governmental checks and balances (cf. 6.3.7-8). It is this aspect of Polybius’ political theory, his conception of the so-called “mixed constitution,” that has made him such an important figure in the tradition of western political thought. In the United States, as a reading of the Federalist Papers indicates, the evolution of the political theory of the “Founding Fathers” was indebted to Polybius.

In 1787 John Adams,arguing against proponents of single-assembly governments, underscored the point when he wrote in his A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,Letter XXX, “I wish to assemble together the opinions and reasonings of philosophers, politicians and historians, who have taken the most extensive views of men and societies, whose characters are deservedly revered, and whose writings were in the contemplation of those who framed the American constitutions. It will not be contested that all these characters are united in Polybius.”Indeed, Arnaldo Momigliano suggested that due to his deep influence on early American political thinkers, Polybius should be considered as an honorary founder of the Constitution of the United States of America.

All that is irrelevant next to the actual Constitution itself. It means nothing and is just a waste of space.
 
It does not matter what the individuals you label as founders said. What matters is what the Constitution says. And what is says is that we have a republican form of government. And the definitions I provided combined with the actual structure of representative government we have show beyond any doubt, beyond any argument, and beyond any dispute that we have a republican form of government.

It really does not matter if you like it or not or if some long dead person had opinions about mixed government because the Constitution does not mention it. The federalist papers can be used for toilet tissue for all the actual governmental value they have next to the actual Constitution.

For you to pretend otherwise should be equal to the capital crime in the area of intellectual fraud.

it also matters how the Constitution lays out the federal government in its structure, and it is clearly mixed, by how officials were elected.....

people
state legislatures
electoral college
 
only in your collective Statist mind..but not to the rest of us.

Herr Barkmann - insulting me does not change you into an US. You are an I - not a WE or an US. You speak for yourself.

Let me know when you stopped supporting the idea of a state. :doh When did you become an anarchist? :roll:

Oh wait - let me guess? Calling me silly names like STATIST is just you getting your far right extremist club card stamped. Okay - got it loud and clear. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom