Is the US a democracy?

[Truthmatters]

there is NO such thing as a representative republic, its a redundant phrase

 

[Ernie S.]

50% + 1 of what the People want does not set Government Policy. We are a Representative Republic.

What is a representative republic


Answer:

Improve


Answer

A republic is representative in some form by nature, so "representative republic" is a redundant term that is no more meaningful than the word "republic".


Read more: What is a representative republic

your so very wrong

My so very wrong? Please, at least make an attempt at effective communication.

 

[Texanmike]

I should have gotten involved and put a stop to this madness a long time ago. Let me clear this up for you guys.

Democracy has two meaings. It is both a type of government and a form of government. The type of government, democracy, does describe the United States. It describes a lot of different nations though. It is used to describe any government in which the people have regular periodic elections. That would describe the US along with several other countries around the world.

Then there is the form of government, Democracy, has nothing in common with the United States other than the fact that people vote. Democracy as a form of government defines the rule of the majority. The majority is defined by 50% of the voters +1 vote. The majority is granted the authority to do anything they wish so long as the majority (50%+1) votes to do something.

While the US is a democracy, it is not a Democracy.

Mike

 

[Ernie S.]

there is NO such thing as a representative republic, its a redundant phrase

No dear, "Truthmatters is an idiot" is a redundant phrase.
In "representative republic" The word "representative" is an adjective. Perhaps you've heard of them.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go find a description of a representaive republic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I will NEVER allow your lies to just stand.

The truth is the truth no matter how many times your lie about it

"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."

It doesn't say
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the democracy for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

hummmm

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Go find a description of a representaive republic.

Why? You'll just ignore it.

 

[Dragon]

I don't deny that our form of government is a Democracy. The problem I have is that "Democracy" is not descriptive enough.
Calling a representative republic a Democracy is like calling baseball a game. Football is a game too but both are not played by the same rules.

Well, that puts us pretty much in agreement. Of course you can't say anything complete about the U.S. government by calling it a democracy; there is much more specific detail to go into in order to describe it properly.

I do find that some people like to insist that we're "a republic, not a democracy," though. It's a fairly common line in certain right-wing circles, and what they imply by it, whether they will admit it or not, is that they want a government restricted to rule by the "better" people and denying an effective voice to the great unwashed. That's what I can't agree with.

 

[The T]

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

You switch rather quickly between 'Democracy' and 'democracy'. We ARE the latter.

no we're not...no matter how many times you hear a politician utter it. They are wrong and need to be called out on it.

 

[Texanmike]

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

Quick question
Can the president issue an executive order that people must worship his religion?

Trick answer. Yes and No.

The President could issue such an executive order if congress gave him statutory authority to do so. Congress is forbidden from giving that authority by the 1st Amendment. In effect the answer is no.

The Tenth Amendment does not restrict the states, it empowers them.

I never said it didn't empower the states. I said certain issues are given to the federal government by the states. The states cannot restrict rights that go beyond the U.S. Constitution. The states cannot forbid freedom to speak out against them the states cannot ban firearms, the sates cannot house national guard troops in the homes of a civilian.[/QUOTE]
The bolded is where you are confused. You are correct that the States cannot do something contrary to the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says that all powers are granted to the states or the people respectively with two exceptions. First would be powers granted to the Federal Government. (An example would be to establish copyright laws, that is granted to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8). The Second is powers which are prohibited to the states by the Constitution. (An example would be coining money under Article 1 Section 10.) The Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth amendment are all examples of powers which are prohibited by the Constitution. The first Amendment does not apply to the states because it specifies Congress. It is the only one of the bill of rights that specifies that it applies to the federal government.

States cannot violate the first Amendment because it does not apply to them. Even the incorporation doctrine (which was not adopted until the early 1800's) should not force the first Amendment on the states.

If you really are interested, I would suggest you read more about Madison. His young adult life (20-25) gave him great prejudice against any form of government control in the lives of individuals. He was a Baptist sympthiser (though he never publically claimed any religion, he thought religion should be left out of politics... some have claimed he too was a deist but there is nothing to support that other than speculation. ) and he was exposed to the three colonies (especially NJ) which never had any sort of religious laws. He lost out in his bid to keep all levels of government out of religion, speech and press.

Kevin Gutzman wrote at length about it. Some of what he says is hard to verify and dare I say, suspect, but he has some great sources and is a good read.

Mike

 

[Rat in the Hat]

tell us why you believe it is or is not.

 

[Dragon]

The first Amendment does not apply to the states because it specifies Congress. It is the only one of the bill of rights that specifies that it applies to the federal government.

No, that isn't quite right. All of the Bill of Rights initially applied only to the federal government, not just the 1A. What changed that was a series of court decisions based on the 14th Amendment, which states in pertinent part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Courts have interpreted this passage to mean that many (although not all) of the restrictions on the federal government that are there to protect the rights of individuals are such that they define "privileges or immunities of citizens" and so are binding on the states as well. That definitely includes the First Amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Quick question
Can the president issue an executive order that people must worship his religion?

Trick answer. Yes and No.

The President could issue such an executive order if congress gave him statutory authority to do so. Congress is forbidden from giving that authority by the 1st Amendment. In effect the answer is no.

The Tenth Amendment does not restrict the states, it empowers them.

I never said it didn't empower the states. I said certain issues are given to the federal government by the states. The states cannot restrict rights that go beyond the U.S. Constitution. The states cannot forbid freedom to speak out against them the states cannot ban firearms, the sates cannot house national guard troops in the homes of a civilian.

The bolded is where you are confused. You are correct that the States cannot do something contrary to the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says that all powers are granted to the states or the people respectively with two exceptions. First would be powers granted to the Federal Government. (An example would be to establish copyright laws, that is granted to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8). The Second is powers which are prohibited to the states by the Constitution. (An example would be coining money under Article 1 Section 10.) The Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth amendment are all examples of powers which are prohibited by the Constitution. The first Amendment does not apply to the states because it specifies Congress. It is the only one of the bill of rights that specifies that it applies to the federal government.

States cannot violate the first Amendment because it does not apply to them. Even the incorporation doctrine (which was not adopted until the early 1800's) should not force the first Amendment on the states.

If you really are interested, I would suggest you read more about Madison. His young adult life (20-25) gave him great prejudice against any form of government control in the lives of individuals. He was a Baptist sympthiser (though he never publically claimed any religion, he thought religion should be left out of politics... some have claimed he too was a deist but there is nothing to support that other than speculation. ) and he was exposed to the three colonies (especially NJ) which never had any sort of religious laws. He lost out in his bid to keep all levels of government out of religion, speech and press.

Kevin Gutzman wrote at length about it. Some of what he says is hard to verify and dare I say, suspect, but he has some great sources and is a good read.

Mike

[/QUOTE]


You need to be careful how you quote a post your last post somehow messed the quote order up.

Trick answer. Yes and No.

The President could issue such an executive order if congress gave him statutory authority to do so. Congress is forbidden from giving that authority by the 1st Amendment. In effect the answer is no.

No the president cannot issue any such executive without it being ruled unconstitutional. As I said the first amendment is not just for congress.

If you really are interested, I would suggest you read more about Madison.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.

The bolded is where you are confused.
States cannot violate the first Amendment because it does not apply to them.

You are confused about the whole Constitution. I suggest some retraining.

The states cannot have a state sponsored religion, they cannot limit protest against the government, they cannot shut down the press. The states cannot ban firearms, the states cannot force citizens to house soldier, The states cannot strip you of your right's without due process, well scratch that since the NDAA 2012 no one has due process.

 

[Dragon]

No the president cannot issue any such executive without it being ruled unconstitutional. As I said the first amendment is not just for congress.

No, he has it right. The president cannot issue such an executive order AT ALL unless authorized by Congress to do so. The president has no power to legislate. For that reason, the First Amendment does not directly apply to the president; it would be superfluous in that he already "shall make no law" -- of any kind.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No the president cannot issue any such executive without it being ruled unconstitutional. As I said the first amendment is not just for congress.

No, he has it right. The president cannot issue such an executive order AT ALL unless authorized by Congress to do so. The president has no power to legislate. For that reason, the First Amendment does not directly apply to the president; it would be superfluous in that he already "shall make no law" -- of any kind.

I said without it being rules unconstitutional or did you missed that part? Notice executive order, now they are considered law.

 

[Ernie S.]

Go find a description of a representaive republic.

What kind of government is THAT?

By Frank Laughter
(Alexander Hamilton Is Winning)

The United States government is not an absolute or pure democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a representative democratic republic.

What's the difference? According to my Merriam-Webster:

Democracy — Government by the people; government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and exercised either directly (Ablsolute, or pure), or indirectly (representative).

Republic — A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them.

Articles I and II of the Constitution are very explicit: We choose representatives and they make the rules that we live by until its time to choose again. Thank God we don't have to run down to the townhall, the statehouse, or the nation's capitol to decide every question.

There are near-pure democracies in the world. Off the top of my head I think of Bolivia, Peru, Columbia, Chile and California. (Inching its way toward the same sad condition is North Carolina.) Personally, I prefer not to live any place with a pure democracy. I like a little order in my daily life. I want my representative to set the speed limit on the roads and if I don't like the numbers I vote against him/her in the next election.

Look at California: Its out of control because the representatives (legislators) have discovered that they don't have to do anything. Every question that arises is put on the next ballot, letting law makers off the hook. If a plan goes bad, its the people's fault, and the representatives get re-elected because they didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Liberty]

no...thankfully.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't deny that our form of government is a Democracy. The problem I have is that "Democracy" is not descriptive enough.
Calling a representative republic a Democracy is like calling baseball a game. Football is a game too but both are not played by the same rules.

Well, that puts us pretty much in agreement. Of course you can't say anything complete about the U.S. government by calling it a democracy; there is much more specific detail to go into in order to describe it properly.

I do find that some people like to insist that we're "a republic, not a democracy," though. It's a fairly common line in certain right-wing circles, and what they imply by it, whether they will admit it or not, is that they want a government restricted to rule by the "better" people and denying an effective voice to the great unwashed. That's what I can't agree with.

Pretty much, we are in agreement. I have not, in this thread expressed disagreement with you. TDM's insistence that we have a "Democracy" has been my focus. While she is not technically in error calling us that, she is in wrong to refuse to look at more accurate descriptions. It's mostly semantics anyway and the argument is of little use for much of anything but to attempt to educate the OP.
Futile, really, since she refuses to acknowledge that her description of our form of government is lacking.

 

[peach174]

We were taught about the differences of governments in our schools.
From the early 1930's till the present day the word Democracy was pushed, by our President's and congressmen.
In 1965 the word Republic was dropped altogether and Democracy was pushed heavily in our schools and universities.

The video explains it very well;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY]Types of Government, Explained - YouTube[/ame]

What we have now is a Federal Government that is totally ignoring our Constitution and is not restraining its self under the limitations of this document.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We were taught about the differences of governments in our schools.
From the early 1930's till the present day the word Democracy was pushed, by our President's and congressmen.
In 1965 the word Republic was dropped altogether and Democracy was pushed heavily in our schools and universities.

The video explains it very well;

Types of Government, Explained - YouTube

What we have now is a Federal Government that is totally ignoring our Constitution and is not restraining its self under the limitations of this document.

ditto