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

[Darkwind]

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.

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 are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.

Did you take your Xanax today? You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why? For the same reasons they chose to count black people as 3/5's of a person and to deny them their freedom.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Nycarb is a commie idiot.

Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.

So you agree that our current government is undemocratic, and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.

Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get 38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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 are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.

Did you take your Xanax today? You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.

What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent. It's like batting 1.000.

One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.

You're a marvel in that sense.

 

[mudwhistle]

And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.

Such is the intellect of the USMB right.

Considering your past posts can you blame them?
Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Nycarb is a commie idiot.

Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.

So you agree that our current government is undemocratic, and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.

Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get 38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.

So why did you and/or your RWnut pals wail to high heaven when Obamacare was passed,

rammed down your throat as was repeatedly claimed, and passed over the People's majority opposition to it, so said the polls supposedly?

If you LOVE undemocratic government so much, why weren't you cheering that, instead of pissing and moaning about it being 'undemocratic'?

eh?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

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 are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.

Did you take your Xanax today? You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.

What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent. It's like batting 1.000.

One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.

You're a marvel in that sense.

You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head. When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

lol, so you think the current system IS tyranny of the majority. Funny stuff.

Only really ignorant fools like you would even attempt to push words on people much smarter than you, they didn't say. But hey, your intellectually dishonest ignorance is entertaining, so carry on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.

Such is the intellect of the USMB right.

Considering your past posts can you blame them?
Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.

I posted verbatim verified quotes. In our country those are considered factual.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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.

The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector. If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am quite content if we were to have a Republic essentially in the manner Jefferson describes,

AKA a democracy.

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 are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.

Did you take your Xanax today? You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.

What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent. It's like batting 1.000.

One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.

You're a marvel in that sense.

You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head. When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.

So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The EC was created in 1781 so that WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS in rural areas could hand their vote to a representative (Elector) who would take their votes to town and vote on behalf of the majority from his sector. If you don't think that isn't just a bit outdated, then you need to start riding a horse to work and light your house with candles instead of electricity.

When I often say that conservatives want to take us back to 1900, I may be a century or so light on that estimate.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

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.

You say a democracy cannot protect minority rights. Gun ownership is potentially a minority right.

Tell us why a democracy cannot protect that right, by law.

A Democracy can that only own a gun and all other races can't, and it would be legal.

 

[mudwhistle]

And I see the brains of the RW operation has already trolled in before even reading it.

Such is the intellect of the USMB right.

Considering your past posts can you blame them?
Usually you try to take a ridiculous position and then attempt to prove it with nothing but opinion.

I posted verbatim verified quotes. In our country those are considered factual.

Not if they are taken out of context, you fucking tool....

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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.

Only really ignorant fools such as yourself could possibly believe that. We are governed by the Constitution, not the whims of the ignorant.

The most ignorant whim just got elected POTUS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

Ronald Reagan

Read more at: Ronald Reagan Quotes

Would that be the idiot Ronald Reagan who said that? Some guy who had no clue what kind of a government we had?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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'?

No. You should learn to read before lecturing those who can

Oh, wow. Just floored by your scope of knowledge.

 

[Darkwind]

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 are a democracy, with some undemocratic imperfections.

Did you take your Xanax today? You know you're not supposed to skip any doses.

What's remarkable about you is, you NEVER manage to say anything intelligent. It's like batting 1.000.

One would think that at some point you might ACCIDENTLY say something intelligent, but even that doesn't happen.

You're a marvel in that sense.

You wouldn't know intelligent if it hit you on your pointy head. When you says something worthy of a thoughtful reply, I'll let you know so that you don't miss it.

So that's your excuse for only making thoughtless posts in this thread?

lol

You have it all wrong. I, and the others, are the only ones making thoughtful, intelligent posts. You are trying to rewrite history as part of a temper tantrum that you can't have your way. You are seeking to subvert the Constitution for your own selfish purposes.

Now, say something intelligent or just give it up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You say a democracy cannot protect minority rights. Gun ownership is potentially a minority right.

Tell us why a democracy cannot protect that right, by law.

A Democracy can that only own a gun and all other races can't, and it would be legal.

Slavery was legal in our REPUBLIC for 80 years or thereabouts.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Nycarb is a commie idiot.

Nah, just an ignorant fool. What can you expect, look where he lives.

So you agree that our current government is undemocratic, and that a good example of that is our undemocratic way of electing a president.

Absofuckinglutely, the federal government was never intended to be democratic as I've said multiple times, the major decisions on representation are made by the creators of that government, the States. You don't like it, get 38 of those States to change it. They are the ones you have to convince the system is broken.

So why did you and/or your RWnut pals wail to high heaven when Obamacare was passed,

rammed down your throat as was repeatedly claimed, and passed over the People's majority opposition to it, so said the polls supposedly?

If you LOVE undemocratic government so much, why weren't you cheering that, instead of pissing and moaning about it being 'undemocratic'?

eh?

You got it done by changing the rules in the middle of the game, just like we will undo it, using your rules. And you folks will cry like hypocritical babies. Plus regressive reps ignored the people that elected them, of course many of them lost their jobs the next election, pay back is a bitch, ain't it.