Constitutionalism, Republicanism, and democracy. Confused terms.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by PTPLauthor, Jan 24, 2014.

  1. PTPLauthor

    PTPLauthor Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've seen these three terms confused so often and I've gotten so sick of it, that I am going to, once and for all, explain what these terms mean. I've seen so many Conservatives here and elsewhere say "the Framers didn't want democracy, they hated democracy, we're a constitutional republic" without even understanding the three terms.

    First off:

    Constitutionalism is adherence to a system of constitutional government. That is, there is a basic law of how the government operates that is written down in most cases. Every form of government can exist as a constitutional form of government. In fact, Saudi Arabia and North Korea both have a Constitution and can thust be considered constitutional governments.

    Republic is when the affairs of state are a public matter. This term derives from the Latin res publica meaning "public affair". Basically, as an umbrella term, most countries that don't have a hereditary monarchy are republics.

    Democracy is where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens, usually, but not always through voting There are two types of democracy, direct democracy, and indirect or representative democracy.
    All three can exist within the same country, for example. France is a constitutional democratic republic. Many communist countries adopted "democratic republic" as a part of their name in an effort to claim that their people were supportive of the communist regimes.

    When the Framers were around, there was no concept of a "representative democracy", in fact, the United States was the first representative democracy. In the Eighteenth Century, the term "democracy" referred exclusively to Athenian direct democracy. The modern understanding of political science did not fully develop until the late 1800s, and thus, the "Republic" of the United States was not understood to be a form of democracy until then.

    The Framers were opposed to the direct form of democracy because of the inefficiency of the method and because the majority of the people in the United States were poorer, undereducated, and thus would dilute the power the educated would have been able to retain. In the end, the Framers established for us, a representative democratic system within the House of Representatives, but made it subordinate to the Senate, which was chosen by the state legislatures.

    Of course, our system is not truly democratic, thanks to our voting system, there are only two main parties while other, more democratic, republics have multiple parties within their legislatures.

    So, yes, we're both a constitutional republic and somewhat a democracy but no, the Framers did not oppose democracy. Had they opposed democracy, the House of Representatives would have been appointed by the State Legislatures as well.
     
  2. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who has said that the framers hated democracy? Ive spent my fair share around political chat, and I dont ever recall coming across that notion. I have seen people say we are a Democratically elected constitutional republic in response to someone calling us a democracy, in which case they are obviously making a distinction between a direct Democracy and what we have, but in the nomenclature that you used, I have not seen that put forward. It seems to me like you created this fictitious argument then proceeded to answer that fictitious argument, while pretending like you are lecturing conservatives.
     
  3. PTPLauthor

    PTPLauthor Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some on here have claimed that the Framers did not want democracy and so they organized us as a republic.
     
  4. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Truly! Whence did the notion come from th democracy refers exclusively to mob rule, or that republic means the rule of law?

    Nonsense!
     
  5. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would assume they were making a distinction between a direct democracy as opposed to a representative republic. I would also assume someone making that argument knows full well the gist of your OP. Im sure you dont have people thinking that the framers didnt want the citizens to vote for their representatives, and making the implication as you have that they do think that, is disingenuous.
     
  6. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are a Plutocracy, bordering on fascism. We're far from a democracy. Money dictates all, and those that control it, control all. We're basically no different then Rome was, in it's day, destined to fall and burn. Sad, but true.
     
  7. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,331
    Likes Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it wasn't that the founding fathers oppressed a democracy. they knew the couldn't trust its citizenry with that ultimate power of a true democracy, and that still holds true to this day. our public in general isn't educated enough for that responsibility especially now with governing becoming so much more complex.
    It is why they put in a few safe guards. the most notable was the electoral college. either you purposely failed to mention because it goes against you assumption the founding fathers was not against a true democracy, or your or your just ignorant what the founding father concerns and intentions were. the electoral college was formed so educated men would make sure the uneducated public wouldn't put a woefully unqualified candidate into the presidency.
    It is the same reason the founding father only wanted land owners to be able to vote because they want the ones who actually had a vested interest that correct decision were made for the betterment of the country the ones who actually had skin in the game
     
  8. PTPLauthor

    PTPLauthor Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Framers established a democracy. It was a representative democracy, but at the time, they did not understand that was what they were doing. At the time, voting was not considered a right granted with citizenship and was not so until the beginning of the Jacksonian Democracy movement in the early 1800s.. I agree that, yes, a lot of the United States populace were undereducated, however, the way the Constitution was set up, the only directly-elected part of the federal government was the House of Representatives. The will of the populace was thus already diluted since the House of Representatives was heavily checked by both the Senate and the Presidency, which were much stronger.

    Initially voting was determined by the States, see Article One, Section One, Clause One: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. Birthright citizenship was not established in the United States until the Fourteenth Amendment.

    I didn't mention the Electoral College because despite its flaws, the Electoral College was an ingenious way of ensuring the Presidential Election was done in a manner that preserved the federal nature of the republic. The system provides an easy way to determine a President relatively quickly and fairly. The Electoral College was not mentioned further because the flaws were not the doing of the Framers, but the doing of the States.

    It wasn't the Framers that chose landowners, it was the States. See the Article of the Constitution I pointed out above, most States had landownership as a prerequisite for suffrage. Also, it wasn't because people who had land had a vested interest in the country, it was because landownership usually meant they were wealthier and wealth back then usually meant they were educated. Educated individuals would be more likely to vote for intellectual candidates.
     
  9. Brtblutwo

    Brtblutwo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,564
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since the beginning of the U.S. the rich have influenced lawmakers. But over the last one hundred years, the elected officials in this country, from municipal to federal, most have been for sale to the highest bidder.

    The voters that support candidates unwilling to change laws to eliminate lobbyists, limit campaign donations and other honoraria, and strictly enforce these laws are to blame for the current level of corruption in our government.

    This corruption is not limited to one party. It’s the long serving members of Congress that have the experience necessary to hide their dirty dealings from the voters. Unfortunately, the average Americans cannot compete with the fat cats; even when we find an honest representative, his or her ethical efforts to serve constituents is smothered by those determined to maintain the status quo cronyism so they can keep lining their pockets.
     
  10. BitterPill

    BitterPill New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They didn't like direct democracy, and with good reason. Read Thucydides to find out why.
     
  11. Antiauthoritarian

    Antiauthoritarian Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The house of reps subordinate to the senate? Where do you get this stuff? Ever heard of the Great Compromise? The founders set them up as co-equal branches of the congress. The 17th amendment broke that deal.
     
  12. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sorry to disappoint you but there are how many different types of democracy??? You claimed that there are 2 types, right??? Try this on for size;

    A direct democracy or pure democracy is a type of democracy where the people govern directly. Athenian democracy or classical democracy refers to a direct democracy developed in ancient times in the Greek city-state of Athens. A popular democracy is a type of direct democracy based on referendums and other devices of empowerment and concretization of popular will.
    An industrial democracy is an arrangement which involves workers making decisions, sharing responsibility and authority in the workplace.
    Intra-party democracy refers to the democratic process within a single-party state government. Scholars debate if the Chinese Communist Party resembles this process during leadership transitions.


    Upward and onward;

    A representative democracy is an indirect democracy where sovereignty is held by the people's representatives.
    A liberal democracy is a representative democracy with protection for individual liberty and property by rule of law. An illiberal democracy has weak or no limits on the power of the elected representatives to rule as they please.
    Types of representative democracy include:
    Electoral democracy – type of representative democracy based on election, on electoral vote, as modern occidental or liberal democracies.
    Dominant-party system – democratic party system where only one political party can realistically become the government, by itself or in a coalition government.
    Parliamentary democracy – democratic system of government where the executive branch of a parliamentary government is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of government.
    Westminster democracy – parliamentary system of government modeled after that of the United Kingdom system.
    Jacksonian democracy – form of democracy popularized by President Andrew Jackson promoted the strength of the executive branch and the Presidency at the expense of Congressional power.
    Soviet democracy or Council democracy – form of democracy where the workers of a locality elect recallable representatives into organs of power called soviets (councils.) The local soviets elect the members of regional soviets who go on to elect higher soviets.
    Totalitarian democracy – system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.
    A demarchy has people randomly selected from the citizenry through sortition to either act as general governmental representatives or to make decisions in specific areas of governance (defense, environment, etc.).
    A non-partisan democracy is system of representative government or organization such that universal and periodic elections (by secret ballot) take place without reference to political parties.
    An organic democracy is a democracy where the ruler holds a considerable amount of power, but their rule benefits the people. The term was first used by supporters of Bonapartism

    And shall we continue???

    An e-democracy uses electronic communications technologies, such as the Internet, in enhancing democratic processes within a democratic republic or representative democracy.
    An emergent democracy is social system in which blogging undermines mainstream media

    A bioregional democracy matches geopolitical divisions to natural ecological regions.
    A cellular democracy, developed by economist Fred E. Foldvary, uses a multi-level bottom-up structure based on either small neighborhood governmental districts or contractual communities.[3]
    A workplace democracy refers to the application of democracy to the workplace[4] (see also industrial democracy).

    A liberal democracy is a representative democracy with protection for individual liberty and property by rule of law. In contrast, a defensive democracy limits some rights and freedoms in order to protect the institutions of the democracy.

    A religious democracy is a form of government where the values of a particular religion have an effect on the laws and rules, often when most of the population is a member of the religion, such as:
    Theodemocracy –
    Christian democracy –
    Islamic democracy –

    Anticipatory democracy – relies on some degree of disciplined and usually market-informed anticipation of the future, to guide major decisions.
    Consensus democracy – rule based on consensus rather than traditional majority rule.
    Constitutional democracy – governed by a constitution.
    Delegative democracy – a form of democratic control whereby voting power is vested in self-selected delegates, rather than elected representatives.
    Deliberative democracy – in which authentic deliberation, not only voting, is central to legitimate decision making. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule.
    Democratic centralism – organizational method where members of a political party discuss and debate matters of policy and direction and after the decision is made by majority vote, all members are expected to follow that decision in public.
    Democratic dictatorship (also known as democratur) –
    Democratic republic – republic which has democracy through elected representatives
    Economic democracy – theory of democracy involving people having access to subsistence, or equity in living standards.
    Grassroots democracy – emphasizes trust in small decentralized units at the municipal government level, possibly using urban secession to establish the formal legal authority to make decisions made at this local level binding.
    Interactive democracy – proposed form of democracy utilising information technology to allow citizens to propose new policies, "second" proposals and vote on the resulting laws (that are refined by Parliament) in a referendum.
    Jeffersonian democracy – named after American statesman Thomas Jefferson, who believed in equality of political opportunity (for male citizens), and opposed to privilege, aristocracy and corruption.
    Market democracy – another name for democratic capitalism, an economic ideology based on a tripartite arrangement of a market-based economy based predominantly on economic incentives through free markets, a democratic polity and a liberal moral-cultural system which encourages pluralism.
    Multiparty democracy – two-party system requires voters to align themselves in large blocs, sometimes so large that they cannot agree on any overarching principles.
    New Democracy – Maoist concept based on Mao Zedong's "Bloc of Four Classes" theory in post-revolutionary China.
    Participatory democracy – involves more lay citizen participation decision making and offers greater political representation than traditional representative democracy, e.g., wider control of proxies others trust them with, to those who get directly involved and actually participate.
    Radical democracy – type of democracy that focuses on the importance of nurturing and tolerating difference and dissent in decision-making processes.
    Sociocracy – democratic system of governance based on consent decision making, circle organization, and double-linked representation.


    Now, would you care to define exactly what you mean when you use the word, Democracy?? And since the root of the Greek word means "Mob Rule" I do have trouble finding it a useful expression of our form of Government.
     
  13. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And while we are about it;

    "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

    Republic vs. Democracy

    Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

    Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

    A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice.
    Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches for checks and balance. Lawmaking in Democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the majority by polls and/or voter referendums, which in turn is mob rule 50% plus 1 vote takes away anything from the minority. Here is one example; if 51% of the people don’t pay taxes they can vote a tax increase on the 49% that do, which is mob rule.
    Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
    Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly said that they had founded a republic in numerous quotes, and documents.


    Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion", the word Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with this quote, along with more warnings from others.

    "Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin
    “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
    “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
    “But government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.” Henry David Thoreau

    Our military training manuals use to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.



    Below is what the Manual No. 2000-25 says in Section IX Lesson 9.

    DEMOCRACY:
    A government of the masses.
    Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
    Results in mobocracy.
    Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
    Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.


    REPUBLIC:
    Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
    Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
    Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
    A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
    Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
    Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
    Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.



    The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. His right hand man, Harry Lloyd Hopkins, the New Deal architect, who suggested many of F.D.R.’s policies said.

    "We shall Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference". Harry Hopkins
     
  14. Antiauthoritarian

    Antiauthoritarian Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for breakfast. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

    Sorry, couldn't resist. :evil:
     
  15. Brtblutwo

    Brtblutwo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,564
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only problem with revolution, the only problem, is that the conservatives and neoconservatives will defend the right of the very rich to buy influence and further the corruption in our government.

    The same foolishness that has the right-wingers believing men like the Koch Brothers are saints, and that U.S. workers are stealing from their employers when they demand a liveable wage, will have the righties volunteering to give their lives and the lives of their children to protect the one percent.
     
  16. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course they didn't like direct democracy, because it is wholly impractical. I don't have to go back to the Pelopennesian War to figure out why.
     

Share This Page