Thomas Paine Father of American Democracy?

[BackAgain]

Of course isn't. Usually, constitutional changes is a legally difficult and lengthy process. The US is not unique in this.

Did somebody argue that it isn’t difficult?

And, maybe, more importantly, I am very happy that our process to amend our Constitution is difficult. I think that’s great.

 

[ESay]

Did somebody argue that it isn’t difficult?

And, maybe, more importantly, I am very happy that our process to amend our Constitution is difficult. I think that’s great.

My point was that this fact doesn't make the US a 'constitutional republic' and not a 'democracy'.

 

[BackAgain]

My point was that this fact doesn't make the US a 'constitutional republic' and not a 'democracy'.

We are a Constitutional republic and not a democracy precisely because the desire of any temporary majority cannot (legally) override the Constitution.

You didn’t make the point you now try to more clearly articulate.

 

[ESay]

We are a Constitutional republic and not a democracy precisely because the desire of any temporary majority cannot (legally) override the Constitution.

You didn’t make the point you now try to more clearly articulate.

My point is a 'democracy' can't change the Constitution simply by the majority. Usually, it takes a lengthy and difficult procedure. I know one 'democracy' that requires any constitutional amendment to be approved with two voting procedures - one by a simple majority; and the second vote, not earlier than 3 months after, by two-thirds of overall MPs. That doesn't make this 'democracy' a 'constitutional republic'.

 

[BackAgain]

My point is a 'democracy' can't change the Constitution simply by the majority

We all already know that. That’s not a “point.” It is maybe a premise. It’s a given.

Usually, it takes a lengthy and difficult procedure.

Yes. We know. And?

I know one 'democracy' that requires any constitutional amendment to be approved with two voting procedures - one by a simple majority; and the second vote, not earlier than 3 months after, by two-thirds of overall MPs. That doesn't make this 'democracy' a 'constitutional republic'.

It may be a democracy you’re talking about. The procedure for a Constitutional amendment (assuming you’re talking about a country with a true constitution) isn’t what makes a country a constitutional republic.

What does make a country a Constitutional republic is the fact that it is, first, a republic and, secondly, that its government is bound to and limited by its constitutional authority.

This is why our Congress can pass a law which our Supreme Court can validly negate. It is NOT the rule of the majority that controls. Not directly (as in a democracy) nor even indirectly (as in a republic of representatives). If that expressed “will of any majority” is at odds with the provisions, rules and limitations imposed on the government by the Constitution, it doesn’t matter a bit if the will of the majority is rebuffed.

 

[ESay]

We all already know that. That’s not a “point.” It is maybe a premise. It’s a given.

Yes. We know. And?

It may be a democracy you’re talking about. The procedure for a Constitutional amendment (assuming you’re talking about a country with a true constitution) isn’t what makes a country a constitutional republic.

What does make a country a Constitutional republic is the fact that it is, first, a republic and, secondly, that its government is bound to and limited by its constitutional authority.

This is why our Congress can pass a law which our Supreme Court can validly negate. It is NOT the rule of the majority that controls. Not directly (as in a democracy) nor even indirectly (as in a republic of representatives). If that expressed “will of any majority” is at odds with the provisions, rules and limitations imposed on the government by the Constitution, it doesn’t matter a bit if the will of the majority is rebuffed.

And that again, nothing special compared to any European democracy (even if it is a Constitutional monarchy). Any amendments can be taken to the Constitutional Court (or whatever the name is in any given country) that can block these amendments.

 

[BackAgain]

And that again, nothing special compared to any European democracy (even if it is a Constitutional monarchy). Any amendments can be taken to the Constitutional Court (or whatever the name is in any given country) that can block these amendments.

Absolute non sequitur.

 

[ESay]

Absolute non sequitur.

Why is that? Can you tell me what the US has that any European democracy doesn't? Except of the electoral college, of course.

 

[BackAgain]

Why is that? Can you tell me what the US has that any European democracy doesn't? Except of the electoral college, of course.

I have told you. And others. I’m not responsible for your lack of ability to comprehend.

It is strange that you find it so necessary to claim that the American system is similar to the British system or the Italian the French.

It clearly isn’t true.

 

[ESay]

I have told you. And others. I’m not responsible for your lack of ability to comprehend.

It is strange that you find it so necessary to claim that the American system is similar to the British system or the Italian the French.

It clearly isn’t true.

Britain doesn't have a written Constitution. But Italy and France, why not? Constitutions with limits and rights for power branches; two-chamber parliaments; Constitutional Courts.

 

[BackAgain]

Britain doesn't have a written Constitution. But Italy and France, why not? Constitutions with limits and rights for power branches; two-chamber parliaments; Constitutional Courts.

So what?

 

[ESay]

So what?

Constitutional republics, right? Or democracies?