The Great RW myth about the Founders' meaning of 'Republic'.

[Norman]

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"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."

more

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer. Aren't you getting tired of it yet?

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?

Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.

Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult. The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.

There was no such thing as a "Ring-Winger" at the time of the founding.

There were rightwingers during the Revolution. They were called Tories, or Loyalists.

You're labeling everyone on the right as "ringtwinger". You don't even know the meaning. A ringwinger is a reactionary and/or an ultraconservative. In Urban slang it is the party the sits on the right side of chambers. Personally, I choose to use the true meaning of the word. I believe using slang, in most cases, is an affront to the English language. Words have meaning, slang changes that meaning thereby changing the context and content of communication.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"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."

more

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer. Aren't you getting tired of it yet?

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?

Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.

You are a fool.

There is no other explanation.

Or maybe brain damage.

A democracy cannot protect minority rights.

 

[Norman]

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"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."

more

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer. Aren't you getting tired of it yet?

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?

Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.

You are a fool.

There is no other explanation.

Or maybe brain damage.

A democracy cannot protect minority rights.

Classic projection. Your communist ideology is responsible for deaths to the tune of 100 millions. Yet you believe in it. That's insanity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?

Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.

You are a fool.

There is no other explanation.

Or maybe brain damage.

A democracy cannot protect minority rights.

Classic projection. Your communist ideology is responsible for deaths to the tune of 100 millions. Yet you believe in it. That's insanity.

One, used projection as psychological compensation wrongly. You don't know what it means.

You have no idea what is 'communism,' and democracy and capitalism have killed a 100 million as well over three centuries of imperialism and colonialism and nationalism.

 

[OKTexas]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Well I guess you now know why there are no national elections. The States formed the union and established the federal government, the States decided how their representatives to that government would be elected. All elections are conducted by the States in the smallest areas practical to accomplish that intent. That's why they established a representative in the House for every 35,000 citizens within each state, of course that has changed with the rapidly expanding population in modern society.

But the short of it is the States are responsible for the federal government we have, and the Constitution they established to determine their representation at all levels. There are no national elections, only State elections to determine State representation to that government. The electoral college is comprised of State representatives who carry out the wishes of the respective States, not the union as a whole.

 

[blackhawk]

Amazing how people's view of our current system of government can change depending on how an election turns out.

Yeah. The Right claimed Clinton's win in 92 wasn't legitimate because he only got 43% of the popular vote.

Thanks for proving my point the right did then now you on the left are doing the same thing in 2016.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Stop it NY ...you are starting to sound pathetic..

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the generalWelfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

They're throwing around "republic" now because they know they're getting a monarchy in January.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"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."

more

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer. Aren't you getting tired of it yet?

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?

Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.

Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez. She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.

Trump: 62,238,425
Clinton: 64,156,255

2016 presidential election results

 

[EverCurious]

Folks seriously need to read the Federalist papers and see the arguments that were being made during the planning of our Constitution...

 

[hazlnut]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

The founders outlined a very detailed Republic in the constitution. Their collaborative work tells us exactly what they wanted.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Conservatives hate majority rule. Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.

Conservatives hate it either way.

Paul Ryan on abortion rights:

“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”

IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome. That is how the Right thinks.



Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News

Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..

The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency. . They are fooks because they cannot think straightly. Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.

As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it) to overcome their loss of the popular vote.

The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.

What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?

Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.

It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?

A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives. That the dumbest thing you've ever said.

So you can't answer as to why our Founders had chosen to go with an electoral college, and a Republic form of government. What's purpose do you believe it serves trying to throw out quotes by Thomas Jefferson when you can't explain either? Not to mention this IS the form of government the Founders did choose for our nation, if you actually took time to study your American history. When you don't know enough to explain our system of government it serves no purpose in crying about it.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?

But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...

what did he say? Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?

Taking what one man said to support your lame argument proves you to be ignorant.

 

[OKTexas]

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"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."

more

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer. Aren't you getting tired of it yet?

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?

Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.

Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez. She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.

Trump: 62,238,425
Clinton: 64,156,255

2016 presidential election results

Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our founders went with a republican government because (1) they feared the mob and (2) a too strong executive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?

But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...

what did he say? Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?

Taking what one man said to support your lame argument proves you to be ignorant.

Shut up, AF1, if you cannot intelligently discuss this topic. Jefferson is an expert source on the OP. You are not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?

Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.

Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez. She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.

Trump: 62,238,425
Clinton: 64,156,255

2016 presidential election results

Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.

Yes, in terms of the Constitution, But HRC still got more votes for president than any white man, and that is what Trump is going to face within and without the GOP. If a great majority of the People come to believe he is illegitimate, his presidency will fail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"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."

more

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer. Aren't you getting tired of it yet?

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?

Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.

So the majority is incapable of passing a law that guarantees your right to own a gun, that is what you're saying.

Let's hear you prove that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?

Seeing as it is the rule by the majority...


NYCarbineer, you are again talking way beyond your depth. You should not attempt adult stuff, it is too complicated for you.

Obviously it's not rule by majority or else Hillary would be the next prez. She's beating Trump by almost 2,000,000 votes now.

Trump: 62,238,425
Clinton: 64,156,255

2016 presidential election results

Of course it's the rule of the majority, Trump won 67% of the States, that's the majority that counts.

That's a majority of dirt, ground, geographical acres. That is meaningless to a democratic system of government.