- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Yet another attempt to move the goal posts to a different arena.
it means clearly the u.s. was not created as a democracy!
Yet another attempt to move the goal posts to a different arena.
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
it means clearly the u.s. was not created as a democracy!
so what? It is irrelevant what one person interprets in an attempt to gain a political end in an act of salesmanship.
terrific since it is not. What is your point?
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!
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..........
to repeat again, if our government is republican by Madison's own words
What are your definitions of a REPUBLIC and of a DEMOCRACY?
In the former, the leaders must govern based on the constitution. In the latter, mob rule.
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.
Instead of the 3 elements of mixed government, we are down to only 2 elements now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
only in your collective Statist mind..but not to the rest of us.