Is the US a democracy?

[Harry Dresden]

then they are wrong you fool.

EVERY dictionary and encyclopedia as well as all government books agree with me because its the damned definition of the term.

A republic is a type of Democracy

then why did you title your thread.....IS THE US A DEMOCRACY?.....maybe you should go back and re-title it to.....IS THE US A TYPE OF DEMOCRACY?.....you have been back pedaling ever since you started this thread....

 

[Dragon]

That definition is completely compatible with democracy. As long as voting is a right of all citizens rather than privilege restricted to the elite, any republic is a democracy. That includes ours.

What was the last IRS or EPA Statute you voted up or down on?

The phrase "direct democracy" is not a redundancy. There are other types of democracy than that. One such is a democratic republic. Such as the United States.

 

[Truthmatters]

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The 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.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

This is wrttten by Hamilton Abert Long and he is just some hack con.

 

[WillowTree]

why are they so inssitant is pretending the word democracy does not mean what EVERY dictionary says?


why are they so persistant in this lie?

who is they? and which word does our pledge include? Republic? or Democracy?


Have you ever said the pledge?

 

[Truthmatters]

have you ever read a government text book?

 

[Dragon]

Just to keep things clear, when TM says "a republic is a type of democracy," she is incorrect. A DEMOCRATIC republic is a type of democracy. Not all republics are democratic. The Soviet Union, for example, was after Stalin's death a republic but not a democracy.

Those who insist that our republic is not a democracy want us, I suppose, to be more like the Soviet Union. I wouldn't have expected that, but it seems to be the case.

 

[WillowTree]

have you ever read a government text book?

so you read the pledge in a government text book? but you've never said it?

 

[Truthmatters]

A republic is a type of democracy.

its a cold hard fact.

Why do you fight this fact?

 

[Intense]

Yes abd a republic is a type of Democracy.

that is cold hard fact.

Why are you denying the very difinitions of words?

What do you hope to gain by doing so?


Answer that question just once

Not all Republics are, Our's does incorporate Democratic Principles, but is not limited to them. You are being Tricky aren't you TM. Happy Valentine's Day TM.

Again, more Specifically. More detailed, We are a Federalist Constitutional Republic.

Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.

In Europe, "federalist" is sometimes used to describe those who favor a common federal government, with distributed power at regional, national and supranational levels. Most European federalists want this development to continue within the European Union. European federalism originated in post-war Europe; one of the more important initiatives was Winston Churchill's speech in Zurich in 1946.[1]

In Canada, federalism typically implies opposition to sovereigntist movements (most commonly Quebec separatism).

In the United States, advocates of a very small federal government and stronger state governments are those that generally favor confederation, often related to early "anti-federalists" and later the Confederacy in the United States.

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, India and Mexico among others, are also federal countries.

Federalism may encompass as few as two or three internal divisions, as is the case in Belgium or Bosnia and Herzegovina. In general, two extremes of federalism can be distinguished: at one extreme, the federal state being almost completely unitary, while at the other extreme, a federal state in name only, being a confederal union in actuality.

In 1999, the Government of Canada established the Forum of Federations as an international network for exchange of best practices among federal and federalizing countries. Headquartered in Ottawa, the Forum of Federations partner governments include Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria and Switzerland.

Ecclesiastic and theological federalism also exist within some Christian denominations. Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

A republic is a type of democracy.

its a cold hard fact.

Why do you fight this fact?

I challenge you to admit that We are a Federalist Constitutional Republic.

 

[Truthmatters]

Just to keep things clear, when TM says "a republic is a type of democracy," she is incorrect. A DEMOCRATIC republic is a type of democracy. Not all republics are democratic. The Soviet Union, for example, was after Stalin's death a republic but not a democracy.

Those who insist that our republic is not a democracy want us, I suppose, to be more like the Soviet Union. I wouldn't have expected that, but it seems to be the case.

Someone is feeding these fools this line of bullshit.

that someone has a motivation.


Now why do they accept the lies and why are these lies proffered to them?


Someone wants democracy to NOT be a part of this country.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Look at these fools try to claim the words do not mean what they mean.


How can they be such brainwashed fools?

you have been doing the same thing......you started off saying the US is a Democracy.....now after seeing that you were wrong,you are now saying the US is a TYPE of Democracy.....which it is....now which are you going to back?.....what you said when you started this thread OR what you are now saying after seeing that you were wrong?......

 

[Truthmatters]

A republic is a type of democracy.

its a cold hard fact.

Why do you fight this fact?

I challenge you to admit that We are a Federalist Constitutional Republic.

changed your mind on what to call it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[Texanmike]

ONE MORE TIME if the states did not delegate the power to the federal government then it's reserved to the states. The states cannot supersede the Constitution. You keep mentioning Congress is forbidden, What if the president wrote and executive order that we must become religious is that not a violation?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

I'm not going to attempt to fix your misconception... You are wanting it to say one thing and ignoring what it actually says....

Mike

My misconception? Now that's a joke. You think the first amendment is only talking about congress, It's not. As with the supreme court ruling in Heller versus D.C. no state law, or city ordnance can superseded the Constitution. What do you think the tenth amendment is talking about?

Question, Since you think the first amendment is only dictating to congress, if the president writes an executive order that his religion must be worshiped, and only his would that be Constitutional?

The first Amendment specifies congress. How do I "think it" when it says it.. I'll take these one at a time to try and fix your premises.

The Tenth Amendment does not restrict the states, it empowers them. It says that in any case that the Constitution does not grant a power to the federal government or restrict an authority from the states that it is a power left to the states or the people respectively. That doesn't place a restriction on the states, it grants them domain over everything that is not enumerated in the Constitution. In Article 1 section 10 you find most of the restrictions placed on the states. Coincidentally, Madison made a strong push (and was defeated) to include something simliar to the 1st amendment in Article 1 Section 10. In fact there is some evidence (based on Jefferson's notes from the convention) that the First Amendment was a kind of compromise. At the time that the First amendment was ratified 3 of the 13 states had state religions. They did not renounce them, in fact some of them carried on until almost 1850. Also, 2 states had manditory tithing and continued to have it until after 1800. Why all of this discussion about religion? Because the first amendment did not apply to the states.

Heller v. DC? Did you read the opinion or did you just "wiki" 2nd Amendment? You should have looked at McDonald v. Chicago, you know since Chicago doesn't fall directly under federal authority (unlike DC). Heller v. DC explicitly did not consider what you assert it did. Even with all of that considered, the second amendment does not specify a level of government. It says shall not be infringed. That would be one of those things that is prohibited to the states (the Tenth amendment tells you that this is not a power granted to the states).

Now about the executive order. I must stress the need for you to read more. Do your own research and look at original documents. I'm not right because I think I'm right, I'm right because my supporting evidence says so. You are dealing in hypotheticals, not facts. But lets look at some of those. The POTUS cannot issue an executive order "requireing you to worship a religion". To understand why you must first read Article II of the Constitution. The whole thing... The President is charged with "faithully executing the laws"... In order for him to issue an executive order he must be granted statutory authority by Congress. In order for that to happen Congress must have the the authority in the first place. Since the First Amendment prohibits them from doing such a thing they do not have the authority.

Let us take even the most lenient interpretation of the "Executive order" authority. That would be in the case of war. Usually there is an inclusion about statutory authority of the President in a declaration of war. But what if that is not the case? Read about the Korean war. Truman tried to seize all of the steel mills in the country. That was shot down at the SCOTUS (1952 or 3) because Truman had not been granted statutory authority to do something like that.

I encourage you to do more reading. It isn't that you don't care, it is that you just haven't read enough to this point. If I can help clear anything else up let me know.


Mike

 

[Truthmatters]

then they are wrong you fool.

EVERY dictionary and encyclopedia as well as all government books agree with me because its the damned definition of the term.

A republic is a type of Democracy

then why did you title your thread.....IS THE US A DEMOCRACY?.....maybe you should go back and re-title it to.....IS THE US A TYPE OF DEMOCRACY?.....you have been back pedaling ever since you started this thread....

we are a democracy and there is No back peddling except by the right here.

 

[Newby]

 

[Dragon]

A republic is a type of democracy.

its a cold hard fact.

Why do you fight this fact?

As intense said, and as I pointed out above, it is NOT a fact. SOME republics are a type of democracy. Others are not. When you claim as fact things that are demonstrably not fact, you leave yourself open to rebuttal.

The real question is why anyone would not want our republic to be a democratic republic. We have some horrible historical examples of non-democratic republics. Why would we want to be like those countries? Was the USSR a shining light of liberty? Few would say so, but that's the kind of thing that happens under a non-democratic republic. All the power and wealth goes to a privileged few, leaving everyone else to grumble and get drunk.

And the same sort of thing is happening here by a different mechanism. The government is bribed and bought by corporate money, turning what should be a democratic republic into an aristocratic one. All our woes as a nation come from this.

We are a republic. We should be a democracy as well. The alternative is horror.

 

[Truthmatters]

OK OUR form of a Republic is a Democracy.

do you like that better?

The ONLY republic we were discussing is our own which is a Democracy

 

[Intense]

Just to keep things clear, when TM says "a republic is a type of democracy," she is incorrect. A DEMOCRATIC republic is a type of democracy. Not all republics are democratic. The Soviet Union, for example, was after Stalin's death a republic but not a democracy.

Those who insist that our republic is not a democracy want us, I suppose, to be more like the Soviet Union. I wouldn't have expected that, but it seems to be the case.

Someone is feeding these fools this line of bullshit.

that someone has a motivation.


Now why do they accept the lies and why are these lies proffered to them?


Someone wants democracy to NOT be a part of this country.

Not at all. My problem is that in spite of what is Right, you think the Majority has the Right to abuse. Justice does Trump Free Will, when Free Will falls on the wrong side of Decency. You think The Majority always gets to decide and it doesn't. You imply there are no limits. We are influenced by Democratic Ideals, yet the formula for Establishing the Laws we live under are not that simple minded, are they. You understand that we are not a Pure Democracy, as you repeatedly try to project. If we were, there would be no need for a Constitution, or a Bill of Rights. It would only take 50% + 1 to make or repeal any law. As a Nation we seek to serve the spirit of Justice first. Get it yet?

 

[Dragon]

OK OUR form of a Republic is a Democracy.

do you like that better?

The ONLY republican we were discussing is our own which is a Democracy

Yes, that's better. Fuzzy thinking and fuzzy language are never a good thing. It's not enough for YOU to know what you mean, you also need to convey that intelligibly and logically to others.