America is a Republic not a Democracy!

2014-10-03T13:33:58-04:00

For some who have misstated that America is a Democracy.

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.

Constraints on the government:
Democracy - No; the majority can impose its will on the minority.
Republic -Yes; the majority cannot take away certain inalienable rights.

Definition:
Democracy - Is ruled by the omnipotent majority. In a Democracy, an individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
Republic - A constitutionally limited government, of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate branches of government.

Sovereignty is held by:
Democracy - The whole population (as a group).
Republic - The people (individuals).

Common confusion in the USA:
Democracy - People commonly confuse direct democracy with representative democracy. The US officially has a representative style, though many have suggested the US is closer to an oligarchy or plutocracy.
Republic - The US is actually a Republic. It is governed by rule of law. The elected is supposed to be bound by oath to the written governing limits (ie constitution) yet vote "together" and create laws to address concerns of the represented in a democratic way.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 3 at 2014 1:55 PM

2014-10-03T13:55:28-04:00

In the most technical sense, our country has a hybrid form of government. In our form of government, the Constitution limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it's not a pure democracy. But we do elect them by majority rule, so it is Democratic. And, as the form of, the infrastructure, the total form of government, is republican, it is a Republic.

Therefore, to be technically correct, our form of government is a Constitutionally Limited Representative Democratic Republic.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2014 3:09 PM

2014-10-03T15:09:52-04:00

I've always thought this discussion amounted up to nothing more than quibbling. A Republic is a form of democracy. If we have to qualify the word 'democracy' (a representative democracy contra a direct democracy), then I'm not sure that I see the point of the conversation. It seems that people just end up talking past one another.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2014 3:59 PM

2014-10-03T15:59:56-04:00

SFC William Swartz Jr Capt Jeff S. CPT Gregory Wagoner Cpl Private RallyPoint Member Would like to hear your opinion on this subject.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2014 4:20 PM

2014-10-03T16:20:45-04:00

Sorry...I'm good with a Republic. Our forefathers were loath to give strength to mob rule (true democracy) and wanted the educated, literate, land owners and farmers to have the controlling authority as to how our country was ruled. As the same time, our forefathers wanted the common man to have a say and have input as to what the needs/wants of the common man were (aka House of Representatives). These representatives are chosen via voting in their respective localities and definitely are the true representation of "the people". Yet, our forefathers did not want "the people" to utilize strategem to force mob rule on our country (see France immediately after the overthrow of the monarchy) and thus created a more thoughtful group of educated persons to be the second layer and creators of laws & rules, etc. Thus our Senate where anyone elected MUST be a lawyer, but limited in number to two senators to each state, no matter how many people lived in the state.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2014 4:32 PM

2014-10-03T16:32:10-04:00

I think this is a very fuzzy topic. Because there is what is written and there is what is practiced and there is what is perceived.

What is written? I believe we are are republic based on our use of a constitution and amendments as the law of the land. But with the statement by Lincoln "Of the people, by the people" I would think more along a democracy; which I think has taken on more impact than it should. Great speech but not part of the basis of government. Though a Democracy is a government whereby everyone has a voice and can vote, which we do practice; it is not exactly what we practice. We practice by representation of elected officials who use the electoral college, as well as popular vote. See everything gets fuzzy.

What is practiced? New studies http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS [login to see] 01595a.pdf&code=2f259381a9f738d2a8274c4fdfabca59 indicate that we do in fact practice an oligarchy. However, this could also be listed under perception as studies are nothing more than perception of accumulated information. Accumulated information is subject to who has done the collecting and for what purpose. But with our current trend toward allowing lobbyist paid for by the wealthy and industry to influence how our government decides it's business; I would say that a government for the people, by the people may not ring true.

What is perceived? Democracy has a ring to it that Republic does not. I doubt most Americans understand the difference, much less care what their rights are in either. Take a look on any social media, where today the masses regurgitate whatever vitriol they happened to see on the news feed that morning. Most will tout America as a Democracy.

In the end, I do not think it much matters what we think we are, as much as what we are allowing to take place.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2014 5:23 PM

2014-10-03T17:23:45-04:00

I'll re-post what I said when you posted this elsewhere:
----------
"Sorry but America is not a Democracy it is a Republic."
This is a very common misunderstanding. We are, in fact, *both*.

There is nothing inherent in democracy that requires representative rule. In fact, the prototypical example of ancient Athens, was a direct democracy, where all citizens could go to the forum and vote directly on any matter, with a simple majority rule.

There is also nothing inherent in a republic that requires a chartering that protects any particular rights. The ancient Roman republic, before it became an empire, had a republic, but nobody had explicit protection from foundational documents and only the elite enjoyed any real protection in any form.

"Republic" is our form of government. One in which we have representatives for our interests.

"Democracy" is our source of governmental authority. Power is derived from "We the People."

We are a Democratic Republic with Constitutionally declared rights.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2014 5:59 PM

2014-10-03T17:59:08-04:00

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member...right on!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2014 12:48 AM

2014-10-04T00:48:15-04:00

http://m.wimp.com/thegovernment/

The American form of government.

According to this video, the way Americans view the American political system is flawed which can cause confusion. The narrator clarifies what the reality of American government is, and how it ought to change.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2014 9:09 AM

2014-10-04T09:09:31-04:00

I think the language spoken by the founders says it all...

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." - John Adams

"Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." - James Madison

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." - Daniel Webster

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Oct 4 at 2014 10:25 AM

2014-10-04T10:25:30-04:00

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy!
The misconception of democracy has been seen, even among patriots, repeatedly on the Internet, but this is so critical to our ability to understand who & what we are, as a nation, that I had to say something and make sure everybody understood this fact so we're all on the same page. If you already know this, please share this information wide and far.
The United States of America is NOT a Democracy; The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All!"

The Constitution of the United States of America, ARTICLE IV 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 Founding Fathers knew that Democracy is a horrible system of government, totally inadequate for a nation as large as America, as well as conducive to a tyranny of the majority, so they gave us a Constitutional Republic with balanced sharing of powers and checks & balances keeping the progression of tyranny in check, for the most part, for many years

As Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel, who wanted to know the result of the months of deliberation, asked: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Benjamin Franklin responded: "A republic if you can keep it."

Benjamin Rush said, in the year 1789: "A simple democracy ... is one of the greatest of evils" and James Madison said, in 1787, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths," and John Adams is reported to have stated "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide," in the year 1814.

By the 1830's, what we now call "progressives" had already begun transforming our language. Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828 Facsimile Edition) is the last one to have fully Biblical/Christian education definition of all words. Nothing since, other than later printings of this edition of this dictionary, has been published, that I am aware of, that didn't contain some form of word distortion/pollution by those we now call "progressives."

Those "progressives" from the early 20th century all knew full well that we are a Constitutional Republic, IMHO, and like BHO, they felt that the Constitution of the United States of America was an impediment to their agenda, and one of the myriad things that was done to combat the Principles of Liberty Enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, was to promote the falsehood that we are a democracy, rather than a Republic. As Glenn Beck highlighted in his speech at CPAC 2010, in 1938, the COMMUNIST PARTY was publicly exhorting people to vote for "progressive" candidates in pamphlets. This makes it far easier to frame the argument in terms more agreeable to tyranny and oppression, empowering the media & the government-run schools to more easily mislead and misinform.

But even earlier than that, a significant, negative structural change in the system of checks and balances set up by our founding fathers passed by Congress May 13, 1912, then ratified on April 8, 1913. Its name?

The 17th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of Amer...

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Oct 4 at 2014 10:29 AM

2014-10-04T10:29:46-04:00

The 17th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

It modified Article I, section 3, of the Constitution of the United States of America, usurping the U.S. Senatorial Election process from the state legislatures, which process was a bulwark against the Federal Government's expansion of power, and turned the election of Senators over to the masses, removing yet another check and balance against unlimited growth and power of the Federal Government.

Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, which allowed much greater local control over the election process, thereby keeping the Senators linked to the best interest of the states. Sadly, with the 17th Amendment, Senators were given the incentive to increase their own power by bribing the uneducated of the electorate with their neighbors' tax dollars. This unwise change modified our Constitutional Republic to make it more like a Democracy, weakened the protections of the peoples' liberties in the process, and removed the Senate's check/balance against the Spending power of the House of Representatives.

Which brings up the point that technically, according to James Madison (Federalist No. 51, Wednesday, 06 February, 1788), we are a COMPOUND Constitutional Republic:

In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

By the latter half of the 20th century, most public education resources had adopted the falsehood that America is a Democracy as if it were reality, and today, the very mention of the fact that we're a Constitutional Republic is met with scorn by those who know better, but don't want to admit it, as well as the well-intentioned, but misinformed, who have been misled by our public education system, and are resistant to new ideas.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2014 4:47 PM

2014-10-04T16:47:37-04:00

This presumes that pure democracy (also called direct democracy) is the same thing as democracy. In English (and most other languages), adjectives that add no additional meaning are redundant. So the fact that one needs to put the words "pure" or "direct" to distinguish what type of democracy it is indicates that those are not redundant adjectives.

The primary definitions of both terms are nearly identical. Democracy: government by the people or their elected representatives. Republic: a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power. (Collins English Dictionary, 11th Edition, 2011). As those definitions indicate, a republic is a form of democracy where the supreme power is not invested in an unelected individual or group (e.g. - hereditary monarch). This is what is addressed in Constitutional guarantee of Republican government to the states - no state could institutionalize their own hereditary ruling class (e.g. - Prince of Pennsylvania, Duke of Delaware, Count of Connecticut, etc..).

A written constitution is not a requirement for a republic - neither the English Commonwealth (1649-1659) nor the Dutch Republic (1588-1795) appear to have had one. It is true that all forms of modern democracies do function with the Rule of Law, but that does not require a written constitution. Rule of Law is the concept that no one is above the law, what is illegal for one adult citizen is (generally) illegal for all adult citizens. The English Civil War and the French Revolution both established rather pointedly that even a monarch was not exempt from the laws of the land. The US Constitution did establish the powers of the various components of the Federal government - but individual rights were not added to the Constitution until the first ten amendments were ratified approximately two years after the Constitution was.

Democracy comes in many forms - constitutional democracy, parliamentary democracy, direct democracy, and representative democracy, and republics are just a few. Originally, the distinction between the two was not the written constitution but the absence of a hereditary monarch - that is why Franklin reputedly said after the Constitution was drafted that the American people would have "A republic, if you can keep it."

Britain has a constitutional monarchy that is also a parliamentary democracy and a representative democracy. The US has a constitutional republic and a representative democracy.

The word "republic" originates from Latin, res (thing) combined with publica (public).

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Oct 4 at 2014 5:38 PM

2014-10-04T17:38:34-04:00

I think that if we met face to face I would agree with a lot of your sentiment, although the use of constitution to place restrictions on the Government is not part of the definition of a Republic. In fact the British government has utilized a Bill of Rights since 1689, almost one hundred years before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and many would argue the beginning of restraining governmental powers was the Magna Carta. A direct democracy as you refer to in your example of Democracy could include restrictions of the people to people with the use of a constitution. The definition of a Republic is a Representative Democracy, with or without the use of a restraining document.

I personally feel this argument is a waste of time no matter how great it is for the purpose of working the old mind gears to break the rust build up. No matter what people call the United States nobody believes the Constitution should be ignored, and if you believe that winner take all elections are protective of the minority then in the great words of George Strait “I got some oceanfront property in Arizona.”

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Oct 5 at 2014 9:52 AM

2014-10-05T09:52:16-04:00

We practice a form of democracy through the officials that We the People elect to office to "speak" on our behalf and in support of causes/issues that we hold dear, making us a republic more or less in the same vein as the Roman Republic of old. Up until the early '90s I believe that things worked out pretty well, but somewhere along the line officials were elected from BOTH parties that simple do not seem to have the capability or the desire to work together to solve the problems that face our nation. First the "religious right" had issues with the Clinton-Gore administration and lost their way from the victory they achieved in the '94 elections and squandered the "Contract With America" that swept the into office. Then during the Bush-Cheney administration, as the War in Iraq seemed to be going badly, the liberal left really went off the deep end on issues. Which leads us to the mess of the past 5+ years of the Obama-Biden administration and my gawd no one seems to know how to compromise on a damned thing anymore. We need to get back to where we once were, when the right and left, although totally different in their personal/political beliefs were able to work together in compromise to get things done. Of course in the past, we have had strong occupants of the White House who would bring the sides together and say "Look, we need to get off our asses and make things happen. We are the most awesome of nations on the face of the planet and we look foolish in the eyes of our friends and enemies when we can't even pass a budget to keep our government operating. Pull your heads out of rectal defilade, swallow your pride and get this worked out!" Maybe some day we will get back there, one can hope anyways!!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2016 8:09 AM

2016-02-20T08:09:10-05:00

Read this book: legal deception means the devil's in the details!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ [login to see]

You Know Something is Wrong When.....: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause: Anna Maria...

You Know Something is Wrong When.....: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause [Anna Maria Riezinger, Paul Alan Snover, James Clinton Belcher] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. An American Affidavit of Probable Cause