The Trumpist claim that we're 'a republic, not a democracy' is even more dangerous than it sounds

There is no such thing as a pure democracy the moment you have lobbies and vested interest.

 

I agree!

 

France is a Republic, however, compared to the U.S., their Presidential election is democratically different;

France 2022 Presidential Election

1st Round popular votes;

Macron; 27.9%
Le Pen; 23.2%
Melachon; 22%
Zemmour; 7.1%
Precesse; 4.8%
Hidalgo; 1.8%

France Constitution; If no candidate secures an absolute majority of votes in the first round, a second round is held two weeks later between the two candidates who received the most votes.

Second Round/Runoff election

Macron; 58.55%
Le Pen; 41.45%

 

Why is it dangerous? Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

Because there are two options:

Democracy.

Tyranny.

If you diminish one, you promote the other.

You see, 'democracy' is a concept, it is much more than just voting, it's about freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and all the rights and freedoms embodied in the bill of rights, it is a society where there is one man, one vote (okay, 'person' and of course, this equation can vary depending on the type of democracy). Etc.

So, if you poo poo democracy, you promote tyranny, and that is why it is dangerous.

 

Good point.

For your info, several years ago, a PF member created a thread about Quebec’s anti-religion symbols law.

Note; This law banned public servants from wearing religious symbols

Back then, Canadian law experts have overwhelmingly labeled said anti-religion symbols law as unconstitutional, HOWEVER, here’s a stunning fact I didn’t know/most Americans don’t know;

Canada is the only country in the world where its provinces/states were given the constitutional powers to overturn a Supreme Court decision, and legislatively, if a Canadian province overturns a Supreme Court decision, it cannot be appealed.

Thus, due to said “unique provincial/state powers”, I’m wondering if Quebec’s politicians, and other provincial politicians do really care about the Federal Judges that Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau has appointed?

 

I

Ts about the freedom to keep and bear arms, too, but we know that your support of democracy only applies to some rights, not all rights and, only when those rights work in your favor. Don't forget it's your side of the fence that pushes for hate crime laws and hate speech laws.

 

In addition to the above, Quebec also has an unconstitutional anti-English Public Sign Law, and due to said provincial powers, it cannot be strike down by Canada’s Supreme Court.

 

Here’s another Quebec Law that would undoubtedly be unconstitutional in the U.S./strike down by SCOTUS;

In Quebec, a K-12 student cannot attend an English school if his/her mother can’t speak English.

??????????

 

No. The fundamental decider about rights, freedoms and laws is whether they are the best solution for the greatest number of people.
Given your death by firearms record, your "rights" contravene that principle.

 

Well that would make parents evenings and consultations difficult if neither can speak the other's language...

 

No, that isn't how it works. In fact, that's literally the opposite of how it works.

 

Here’s the sole reason why I spoke about Quebec and other Canadian province’s who were given the constitutional powers to overturn a Supreme Court decision;

Recently, SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, and said decision allows each state to set its own abortion laws, thus, said decision gives more powers to the states.

In Canada, provincial governments have the constitutional powers to overturn a Supreme Court decision that protects people’s rights and freedoms.

I then googled the term “Constitutional Democracy, and what I found contradicts the constitutional powers that were given to Canadian provinces, and recently the State’s powers to enact their own abortion laws.

Canadian Example; Quebec banning the rights of public servants to wear religious symbols

U.S. Example; States banning women’s rights to abortion

“In a constitutional democracy, the authority of the majority is limited by legal and institutional means so that the rights of individuals and minorities are respected”

 

Read my posts;

Canada’s Province of Quebec enacted several laws that according to the Canadian Constitution/Law Experts violates people’s rights and freedoms, however, long ago, the Canadian provinces were given the Constitutional powers to overturn a Supreme Court decision that protects people’s rights and freedoms.

Recently, the States were given the constitutional powers to legislate their own abortion laws, and many states have already banned/restricted women’s rights to choose and abort.

 

In addition to the above, note that France’s third presidential candidate “Melachon” missed a 2 candidate runoff election by 1.3% popular votes, thus, had he qualified for a runoff, who would have won the election?

Also, what Melachon’s supporters were telling themselves after their election results were officialized…”We should amend Section XYZ of our Constitution”????????

 

He got it from someone at DailyKos and those folks are the smartest, most highly educated people on the internet. I mean, they read New Yorker and everything!

Anyway, just another average post from an average internet Joe that has discovered how much easier it is to borrow an opinion from someone you agree withthan to take the time and energy to form your own opinion...or even do your own research.

 

We all appreciate you admitting you don't know the difference. Most lefties don't and get sucked into these wild CNN tales of Democracy so I'll help you out.

In a democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority for the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

Which is why Benjamin Franklyn responded to the question, (what have you given us, a Republic or a Monarchy) A Republic if you can keep it.

Even your own Nancy Pelosi knows the difference.
"Let us recall what that pledge says: ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic’ – to the Republic – ‘for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ ‘The Republic for which it stands’ is what we are here to talk about today: ‘a Republic, if we can keep it."

A Republic and a Democracy are two different representations. One is for the majority and the other for the minority.

 

You missing the key distinguishing feature of a Constitutional Republic .. Yes the CR has a democratic process and is a form of democracy via having elected officials

The point of a constitutional republic is that you have a "Constitution" where-by certain rights/freedoms/ are put above and beyond the legitimate authority of Gov't.. which has nothing to do with how we are electing the Gov't .. ..that is the democratic process. The constitutional republic is the frame-work - the officials elected via a democratic process.

The other forms of Liberal or Western Democracy .. do not have the same constitutional safeguards . .. do not have the same limitation to Gov't power.

 

They are only respected if a Supreme Court acts totally impartially and without personal bias.
BTW your comparative examples of religious symbols and abortion don't match. If Canada regards itselfcas truly secular then wearing religious symbols should be banned. Abortion is another moral issue entirely.
IMO when issues which get politicised in a court are up for decision, the proper course of action is a referendum something neither Canada or the USA use. It is the direct expression of a democratic decision and cuts out all politics. Including a Supreme Court.

 

You're just repeating what Mark Levin and various right wing echo chamber sources have been repeating. Why have they been doing this? Well, to be frank, i only started hearing it when they started losing the popular vote. In my 70 years, I NEVER heard it questioned that AMerica wasn't a democracy, not once, ever in my entire life.all throughout my school years up and through college, (many years ago) and my poly sci prof was a republican. yet, here we are all of sudden, republicans are claiming that America is not a democracy.

This is a really new thing, the right is conjuring up.

Look,
Yours are very parochial usages of the terms. History, overall, reveals that they are, in fact, much broader in scope than that.

Madison argued against a direct democracy, however, he was arguing for a 'Republican form of Government, and in so doing he wasn't arguing against a representative democracy, because that is what a Republican form of government is.

Article 4 section 4 of the Us Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...

So, what is a 'republican form of government'?

A 'republican form of government' is a representative democracy.

What that means, is that the United States is a democracy of a certain type, a representative democracy. This is fulfilled by Congress, the House of Representatives, The Senate, The VP (to break ties) and the President (to sign legislation).

So says the US Citizenship and Immigration Department of the United States Government

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.


The point is, terms like 'Constitutional Republic', 'Republican Form of Government' "Representative Democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms.


And semantics are at play here. because the term 'democracy' or 'liberal democracy' is a concept more than just 'voting'. It relates to the notion of a citizenship who have freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, as embodied in the Bill of Rights. When we say 'America is a liberal democracy', no one is referring to voting directly for laws, it's concept embodying all of these things of which a representative body elected by citizens is part. It means the power of our leaders flows from the people.

What do we think of when the term 'liberal democracy' is spoken?

We think of all the nations of the western world, all of whom are said to be 'liberal democracies' or 'western democracies' inclusive of the USA, Canada, and the European nations and others ..To wit;

Liberal Democracies of the world. (Wikipedia)

There is agreement amongst several intellectuals and organizations such as Freedom House that the states of the European Union (with the exception of Poland and Hungary), United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States, India, Canada,[27][28][29][30][31] Uruguay, Costa Rica, Israel, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand[32] are liberal democracies, with India currently having the largest population among the democracies in the world.[33]

Liberal democracies are susceptible to democratic backsliding and this is taking place or has taken place in several countries, including, but not limited to, the United States, Poland and Hungary.[2]

Yes, 'democratic backsliding', the tendency for autocratic operators like Trump who attempt to take control, crush our democratic institutions, who try and say **** like 'America is not a democracy' because they can't win the popular vote, crap like that. This reflects the part where those who complain that democracy isn't all that great, but it's better than all the rest. So, let's be mindful of backsliding and stamp it out whenever and wherever it occurs.


"Republican Form Of Government"

 

Which liberal democracies don't have constitutions?
I can't think of à single one which doesn't.

 

Bullshit
These are concise examples.

In a democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority for the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

One protects the rights of the majority and the other protects the rights of the minority.
And I didn't need paragraphs of garbage to explain it.

So now you're calling your beloved Pelosi a liar?

 

No. A democracy is a FORM of a republic. A subset.
They are not mutually exclusive.

 

~ Some people want socialism/totalitarian government. They simply do not like the U.S. Constitution and make up reasons to ignore it.

 

So Benjamin Frankly is wrong because you don't know the difference?
I don't think so.