Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"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.
Taking what one man said to support your lame argument proves you to be ignorant.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'?
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.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.
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.
Yup, it will fail as did Nixon's if the people does not rally around him. He has made a couple of baby steps, so he has a long way to go. Or he just may be as inept and incompetent as Carter.Only really ignorant fools such as yourself could possibly believe that. We are governed by the Constitution, not the whims of the ignorant.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.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.
But the far right and alt right conservatives would be fucking screaming their heads off.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.
And if the situation was reversed {Hillary getting the EC and Trump the popular vote} I doubt we would hear a peep out of your two faced hypocritical mouth.
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.
But the far right and alt right conservatives would be fucking screaming their heads off.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.
And if the situation was reversed {Hillary getting the EC and Trump the popular vote} I doubt we would hear a peep out of your two faced hypocritical mouth.
But the far right and alt right conservatives would be fucking screaming their heads off.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.
And if the situation was reversed {Hillary getting the EC and Trump the popular vote} I doubt we would hear a peep out of your two faced hypocritical mouth.
No. You should learn to read before lecturing those who canGood 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'?
Your assertion is stupid, as are you.Taking what one man said to support your lame argument proves you to be ignorant.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'?
Not in the context of my original assertion. My original assertion is a refutation of the common RWnut claim that the Founders formed a republic because it's some sort of vastly different entity from a democracy.
Nycarb is a commie idiot.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.
You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
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 deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Nycarb is a commie idiot.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.
You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
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.
What the hell are you even talking about? Where did the gun issue appear? I understand you have to pull stuff right out of your ass, as your brain is just not smart enough to provide you with anything worthwhile.
USA is a republic, deal with it.
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 deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.
Nycarb is a commie idiot.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.
You fucking idiot, the federal government is a representative form of government, NOT A DEMOCRATIC FORM. States elect those representatives per the Constitution, deal with it fool.
Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.
We have never been a democracy. I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.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 deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.
I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,
AKA a democracy.
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.
We have never been a democracy. I figure you'll never learn that, but it always amuses Me to correct you when you're wrong.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 deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
It appears you are of the sect that would subvert our Republic for your own unclean desires.
I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,
AKA a democracy.
