America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[peach174]

We have been slowly turning into a Democracy over the last 115 years by the Progressives.
We will also fail as all democracies do when we run out of other peoples money, unless we start paying down our debt of over 18 trillion and stop with the new stuff like free college and free health care.
The left have a fit over the 4 trillion that Bush added over his 8 years, but refuse to see that it has gone up 9 trillion under Obama at the end of his 8 years.


What Our Fore Fathers Thought
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.

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.

Actually Republicanism was a rallying point AGAINST the Constitution, see my pics especially of Patrick Henry.

here you can see Hamiltons true opinion on republics

7266 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did you read Federalist # 39? James Madison
Do realize that they argued and debated over the points as to what type of Government and then voted on a Republic form of Government?
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

The last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

'Republic' and 'Democracy' are not mutually exclusive. Why is it so hard for you people to get that through your head?

Why can't you get it through your head that the more we become a democracy that this nation will fail ?
For the very reasons that our Founders said.
Can you even see that they are merging the 3 branches of our government?

 

[dcraelin]

We have been slowly turning into a Democracy over the last 115 years by the Progressives.
We will also fail as all democracies do when we run out of other peoples money, unless we start paying down our debt of over 18 trillion and stop with the new stuff like free college and free health care.
The left have a fit over the 4 trillion that Bush added over his 8 years, but refuse to see that it has gone up 9 trillion under Obama at the end of his 8 years.


What Our Fore Fathers Thought
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.

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.

Actually Republicanism was a rallying point AGAINST the Constitution, see my pics especially of Patrick Henry.

here you can see Hamiltons true opinion on republics

7266 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did you read Federalist # 39? James Madison
Do realize that they argued and debated over the points as to what type of Government and then voted on a Republic form of Government?
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

The last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

like I said, Republicanism was a rallying point against the Constitution, that is why Madison and Hamilton are so defensive...trying to convince people it was indeed republican. Going so far as to try and redefine the word as it was understood by the people of the time.

But the Federalist papers are over-hyped and didnt have much of an effect even in new york where they were written.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So when the so-called 'unelected', 'tyrannical' judiciary makes a ruling that upholds the rights of a minority, such as gays on the issue of marriage, even though as some might claim the majority of people in the country disagree,

is that a good example of a republic functioning to oppose what would be the ''mob rule" of a democracy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have been slowly turning into a Democracy over the last 115 years by the Progressives.
We will also fail as all democracies do when we run out of other peoples money, unless we start paying down our debt of over 18 trillion and stop with the new stuff like free college and free health care.
The left have a fit over the 4 trillion that Bush added over his 8 years, but refuse to see that it has gone up 9 trillion under Obama at the end of his 8 years.


What Our Fore Fathers Thought
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.

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.

Actually Republicanism was a rallying point AGAINST the Constitution, see my pics especially of Patrick Henry.

here you can see Hamiltons true opinion on republics

7266 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did you read Federalist # 39? James Madison
Do realize that they argued and debated over the points as to what type of Government and then voted on a Republic form of Government?
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

The last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

'Republic' and 'Democracy' are not mutually exclusive. Why is it so hard for you people to get that through your head?

Why can't you get it through your head that the more we become a democracy that this nation will fail ?
For the very reasons that our Founders said.
Can you even see that they are merging the 3 branches of our government?

Didn't the Court 'branch' just rule in favor of gay marriage as a right which in fact was in opposition to the current legislative branch?

 

[Skylar]

A Constitutional Republic is one form of a democracy.....a Parliamentary govt is another form of a Democracy....

No it isn't.

I was taught in schools I went to on Military bases, we were a Democratic (constitutional) Republic.

• Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

• Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Those two statements say pretty much the same thing.

yes, they do...

Yes they do...now. Go back to the early 1800s, and this was the definition of democracy (Noah's dictionary and Websters provide the exact same 1828 definitions. ]

Democracy:

Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

Search => [word] => democracy :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

And this was a republic:

Republic:

A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

Search => [word] => republic :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

The idea of a 'democratic republic' wasn't really fully formed. Or at the very least, fully agreed upon. That would be later. In the founder's age they were distinct, different forms of government.

By the early 20th century, the definition of democracy had become more expansive:

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. Milton.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called. [U.S.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

With the defintion of 'democracy' moved to match the definition of a republic.

Democracy, 2. &hand; In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery. Republic of letters, The collective body of literary or learned men. <-- Democratic republic, a term much used by countries with a Communist system of government. -->

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

But it didn't start out that way. And the founder's didn't use them interchangeably.

 

[dcraelin]

We have been slowly turning into a Democracy over the last 115 years by the Progressives.
We will also fail as all democracies do when we run out of other peoples money, unless we start paying down our debt of over 18 trillion and stop with the new stuff like free college and free health care.
The left have a fit over the 4 trillion that Bush added over his 8 years, but refuse to see that it has gone up 9 trillion under Obama at the end of his 8 years.


What Our Fore Fathers Thought
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.

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.

Actually Republicanism was a rallying point AGAINST the Constitution, see my pics especially of Patrick Henry.

here you can see Hamiltons true opinion on republics

7266 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Hamilton was addressing a pretty specific argument. Specifically Montesquieu's arguments regarding the inevitiable failure of anything but a small republic. Hamilton argued that a confederacy with a federal government could balance the negatives of a straight republic. As it would mitigate the factionalism of the republic members that was so historically prevelant, as well as help provide 'tranquility' among the States.

One of the primary functions of the federal government under the Constitution is as arbiter between States. As the States (and in former incarnations, colonies) could be petty, disagreeable little bitches.

how is deriding republics addressing Montesquieu's argument?

and So you admit at least that they thought there were negatives to a straight republic.......

 

[peach174]

We have been slowly turning into a Democracy over the last 115 years by the Progressives.
We will also fail as all democracies do when we run out of other peoples money, unless we start paying down our debt of over 18 trillion and stop with the new stuff like free college and free health care.
The left have a fit over the 4 trillion that Bush added over his 8 years, but refuse to see that it has gone up 9 trillion under Obama at the end of his 8 years.


What Our Fore Fathers Thought
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.

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.

So you prefer the government where the minority makes the laws.

lol, good one.

NO
A government where the minority has equal rights, not rule over the majority like they are now.

How can the minority have equal rights to the majority if the minority wants something the majority doesn't want?

Gays were actually discriminated through our laws.
It should have been handled through new laws that excluded them like the inheritance laws ( it was right that the gay couple won on unfair inheritance laws), but not marriage being forced on all by the Supreme Court.

 

[Skylar]

We have been slowly turning into a Democracy over the last 115 years by the Progressives.
We will also fail as all democracies do when we run out of other peoples money, unless we start paying down our debt of over 18 trillion and stop with the new stuff like free college and free health care.
The left have a fit over the 4 trillion that Bush added over his 8 years, but refuse to see that it has gone up 9 trillion under Obama at the end of his 8 years.


What Our Fore Fathers Thought
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.

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.

Actually Republicanism was a rallying point AGAINST the Constitution, see my pics especially of Patrick Henry.

here you can see Hamiltons true opinion on republics

7266 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did you read Federalist # 39? James Madison
Do realize that they argued and debated over the points as to what type of Government and then voted on a Republic form of Government?
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

The last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

like I said, Republicanism was a rallying point against the Constitution, that is why Madison and Hamilton are so defensive...trying to convince people it was indeed republican. Going so far as to try and redefine the word as it was understood by the people of the time.

But the Federalist papers are over-hyped and didnt have much of an effect even in new york where they were written.

The 'effect' of the Federalist Papers isn't their claim to fame. Instead, its a window into the specific intent behind those that would most powerfully influence the 1787 Constitution.

 

[dcraelin]

A Constitutional Republic is one form of a democracy.....a Parliamentary govt is another form of a Democracy....

No it isn't.

I was taught in schools I went to on Military bases, we were a Democratic (constitutional) Republic.

• Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

• Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Those two statements say pretty much the same thing.

yes, they do...

Yes they do...now. Go back to the early 1800s, and this was the definition of democracy (Noah's dictionary and Websters provide the exact same 1828 definitions. ]

Democracy:

Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

Search => [word] => democracy :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

And this was a republic:

Republic:

A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

Search => [word] => republic :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

The idea of a 'democratic republic' wasn't really fully formed. Or at the very least, fully agreed upon. That would be later. In the founder's age they were distinct, different forms of government.

By the early 20th century, the definition of democracy had become more expansive:

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. Milton.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called. [U.S.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

With the defintion of 'democracy' moved to match the definition of a republic.

Democracy, 2. &hand; In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery. Republic of letters, The collective body of literary or learned men. <-- Democratic republic, a term much used by countries with a Communist system of government. -->

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

But it didn't start out that way. And the founder's didn't use them interchangeably.

You are exactly WRONG...look up Dahl's article in the encyclopedia Britannica on democracy...

 

[Skylar]

No it isn't.

I was taught in schools I went to on Military bases, we were a Democratic (constitutional) Republic.

• Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

• Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Those two statements say pretty much the same thing.

yes, they do...

Yes they do...now. Go back to the early 1800s, and this was the definition of democracy (Noah's dictionary and Websters provide the exact same 1828 definitions. ]

Democracy:

Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

Search => [word] => democracy :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

And this was a republic:

Republic:

A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

Search => [word] => republic :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

The idea of a 'democratic republic' wasn't really fully formed. Or at the very least, fully agreed upon. That would be later. In the founder's age they were distinct, different forms of government.

By the early 20th century, the definition of democracy had become more expansive:

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. Milton.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called. [U.S.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

With the defintion of 'democracy' moved to match the definition of a republic.

Democracy, 2. &hand; In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery. Republic of letters, The collective body of literary or learned men. <-- Democratic republic, a term much used by countries with a Communist system of government. -->

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

But it didn't start out that way. And the founder's didn't use them interchangeably.

You are exactly WRONG...look up Dahl's article in the encyclopedia Britannica on democracy...

If you have evidence of it, present it. Exactly as I did with 4 different citations of dictionaries from 2 different eras.

But of the two of us, only I've presented evidence to back my claims. You might want to fix that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have been slowly turning into a Democracy over the last 115 years by the Progressives.
We will also fail as all democracies do when we run out of other peoples money, unless we start paying down our debt of over 18 trillion and stop with the new stuff like free college and free health care.
The left have a fit over the 4 trillion that Bush added over his 8 years, but refuse to see that it has gone up 9 trillion under Obama at the end of his 8 years.


What Our Fore Fathers Thought
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.

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.

So you prefer the government where the minority makes the laws.

lol, good one.

NO
A government where the minority has equal rights, not rule over the majority like they are now.

How can the minority have equal rights to the majority if the minority wants something the majority doesn't want?

Gays were actually discriminated through our laws.
It should have been handled through new laws that excluded them like the inheritance laws ( it was right that the gay couple won on unfair inheritance laws), but not marriage being forced on all by the Supreme Court.

So now you're flip flopping and saying you don't want a separation of powers in the government to protect the rights of minorities.

Jesus! so predictable.

 

[dcraelin]

We have been slowly turning into a Democracy over the last 115 years by the Progressives.
We will also fail as all democracies do when we run out of other peoples money, unless we start paying down our debt of over 18 trillion and stop with the new stuff like free college and free health care.
The left have a fit over the 4 trillion that Bush added over his 8 years, but refuse to see that it has gone up 9 trillion under Obama at the end of his 8 years.


What Our Fore Fathers Thought
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.

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.

Actually Republicanism was a rallying point AGAINST the Constitution, see my pics especially of Patrick Henry.

here you can see Hamiltons true opinion on republics

7266 by dcraelin on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did you read Federalist # 39? James Madison
Do realize that they argued and debated over the points as to what type of Government and then voted on a Republic form of Government?
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

The last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

like I said, Republicanism was a rallying point against the Constitution, that is why Madison and Hamilton are so defensive...trying to convince people it was indeed republican. Going so far as to try and redefine the word as it was understood by the people of the time.

But the Federalist papers are over-hyped and didnt have much of an effect even in new york where they were written.

The 'effect' of the Federalist Papers isn't their claim to fame. Instead, its a window into the specific intent behind those that would most powerfully influence the 1787 Constitution.

they cannot change the words as used at the time.....those common definitions have to be used, and the federalist actually give hints as to how they were indeed used...for that I am thankful.

 

[dcraelin]

I was taught in schools I went to on Military bases, we were a Democratic (constitutional) Republic.

• Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

• Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Those two statements say pretty much the same thing.

yes, they do...

Yes they do...now. Go back to the early 1800s, and this was the definition of democracy (Noah's dictionary and Websters provide the exact same 1828 definitions. ]

Democracy:

Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

Search => [word] => democracy :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

And this was a republic:

Republic:

A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

Search => [word] => republic :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

The idea of a 'democratic republic' wasn't really fully formed. Or at the very least, fully agreed upon. That would be later. In the founder's age they were distinct, different forms of government.

By the early 20th century, the definition of democracy had become more expansive:

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. Milton.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called. [U.S.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

With the defintion of 'democracy' moved to match the definition of a republic.

Democracy, 2. &hand; In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery. Republic of letters, The collective body of literary or learned men. <-- Democratic republic, a term much used by countries with a Communist system of government. -->

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

But it didn't start out that way. And the founder's didn't use them interchangeably.

You are exactly WRONG...look up Dahl's article in the encyclopedia Britannica on democracy...

If you have evidence of it, present it. Exactly as I did with 4 different citations of dictionaries from 2 different eras.

But of the two of us, only I've presented evidence to back my claims. You might want to fix that.

not this crap again...I have presented many quotes to you......Where do you think .dictionaries get their defintions?...from common usage as they find it.

My whole Gallery deals with this issue....I have posted some of them here.....

now address Arizona v Arizona

 

[Skylar]

Those two statements say pretty much the same thing.

yes, they do...

Yes they do...now. Go back to the early 1800s, and this was the definition of democracy (Noah's dictionary and Websters provide the exact same 1828 definitions. ]

Democracy:

Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

Search => [word] => democracy :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

And this was a republic:

Republic:

A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

Search => [word] => republic :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

The idea of a 'democratic republic' wasn't really fully formed. Or at the very least, fully agreed upon. That would be later. In the founder's age they were distinct, different forms of government.

By the early 20th century, the definition of democracy had become more expansive:

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. Milton.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called. [U.S.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

With the defintion of 'democracy' moved to match the definition of a republic.

Democracy, 2. &hand; In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery. Republic of letters, The collective body of literary or learned men. <-- Democratic republic, a term much used by countries with a Communist system of government. -->

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

But it didn't start out that way. And the founder's didn't use them interchangeably.

You are exactly WRONG...look up Dahl's article in the encyclopedia Britannica on democracy...

If you have evidence of it, present it. Exactly as I did with 4 different citations of dictionaries from 2 different eras.

But of the two of us, only I've presented evidence to back my claims. You might want to fix that.

not this crap again...I have presented many quotes to you......Where do you think .dictionaries get their defintions?...from common usage as they find it.

My whole Gallery deals with this issue....I have posted some of them here.....

now address Arizona v Arizona

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claims with evidence. Exactly as I have. Instead, you give me excuses why you won't.

So...we have evidence from 2 different dictionaries, complete with 4 separate citations from me, with links for all of it.

And nothing but excuses from you.

 

[dcraelin]

yes, they do...

Yes they do...now. Go back to the early 1800s, and this was the definition of democracy (Noah's dictionary and Websters provide the exact same 1828 definitions. ]

Democracy:

Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

Search => [word] => democracy :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

And this was a republic:

Republic:

A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

Search => [word] => republic :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

The idea of a 'democratic republic' wasn't really fully formed. Or at the very least, fully agreed upon. That would be later. In the founder's age they were distinct, different forms of government.

By the early 20th century, the definition of democracy had become more expansive:

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. Milton.

4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called. [U.S.]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

With the defintion of 'democracy' moved to match the definition of a republic.

Democracy, 2. &hand; In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery. Republic of letters, The collective body of literary or learned men. <-- Democratic republic, a term much used by countries with a Communist system of government. -->

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

But it didn't start out that way. And the founder's didn't use them interchangeably.

You are exactly WRONG...look up Dahl's article in the encyclopedia Britannica on democracy...

If you have evidence of it, present it. Exactly as I did with 4 different citations of dictionaries from 2 different eras.

But of the two of us, only I've presented evidence to back my claims. You might want to fix that.

not this crap again...I have presented many quotes to you......Where do you think .dictionaries get their defintions?...from common usage as they find it.

My whole Gallery deals with this issue....I have posted some of them here.....

now address Arizona v Arizona

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claims with evidence. Exactly as I have. Instead, you give me excuses why you won't.

So...we have evidence from 2 different dictionaries, complete with 4 separate citations from me, with links for all of it.

And nothing but excuses from you.

I have referred to the Britannica article........

I have referred to the SC case Arizona v Arizona numerous times. in other threads even....and you have, laughably, refused to address it.

I have not seen your supposed dictionary definitions posted in this thread.....but even most modern dictionaries generally list republic and democracy as synonyms.

 

[Skylar]

Evidence like this:

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

-James Madison, Federalist Paper 10.

A description that matches the definitions I've cited perfectly.

 

[Skylar]

Yes they do...now. Go back to the early 1800s, and this was the definition of democracy (Noah's dictionary and Websters provide the exact same 1828 definitions. ]

And this was a republic:

The idea of a 'democratic republic' wasn't really fully formed. Or at the very least, fully agreed upon. That would be later. In the founder's age they were distinct, different forms of government.

By the early 20th century, the definition of democracy had become more expansive:

With the defintion of 'democracy' moved to match the definition of a republic.

But it didn't start out that way. And the founder's didn't use them interchangeably.

You are exactly WRONG...look up Dahl's article in the encyclopedia Britannica on democracy...

If you have evidence of it, present it. Exactly as I did with 4 different citations of dictionaries from 2 different eras.

But of the two of us, only I've presented evidence to back my claims. You might want to fix that.

not this crap again...I have presented many quotes to you......Where do you think .dictionaries get their defintions?...from common usage as they find it.

My whole Gallery deals with this issue....I have posted some of them here.....

now address Arizona v Arizona

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claims with evidence. Exactly as I have. Instead, you give me excuses why you won't.

So...we have evidence from 2 different dictionaries, complete with 4 separate citations from me, with links for all of it.

And nothing but excuses from you.

I have referred to the Britannica article........

I have referred to the SC case Arizona v Arizona numerous times. in other threads even....and you have, laughably, refused to address it.

I have not seen your supposed dictionary definitions posted in this thread.....but even most modern dictionaries generally list republic and democracy as synonyms.

You're making vague reference to an article you haven't cited, quoted, or linked to in any way. While I'm citing the dictionary ...4 times, the Federalist Papers, and James Madison.

Directly.

Try again, this time with actual evidence.

 

[dcraelin]

Evidence like this:

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

-James Madison, Federalist Paper 10.

A description that matches the definitions I've cited perfectly.

first he doesn't define democracy in general...just a pure democracy

then he qualifies even that definition....i.e. creates a new one, by saying" by which I mean "

then he does the same with republic "by which I mean"......only that isnt what most who argued against the Constitution (or even those who argued for it) meant when they used the word.

which is later attested to by himself when he says, as is shown in my gallery, that he has found a "republic cure " for the "diseases" most incident to a republican government.

 

[dcraelin]

You are exactly WRONG...look up Dahl's article in the encyclopedia Britannica on democracy...

If you have evidence of it, present it. Exactly as I did with 4 different citations of dictionaries from 2 different eras.

But of the two of us, only I've presented evidence to back my claims. You might want to fix that.

not this crap again...I have presented many quotes to you......Where do you think .dictionaries get their defintions?...from common usage as they find it.

My whole Gallery deals with this issue....I have posted some of them here.....

now address Arizona v Arizona

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to back your claims with evidence. Exactly as I have. Instead, you give me excuses why you won't.

So...we have evidence from 2 different dictionaries, complete with 4 separate citations from me, with links for all of it.

And nothing but excuses from you.

I have referred to the Britannica article........

I have referred to the SC case Arizona v Arizona numerous times. in other threads even....and you have, laughably, refused to address it.

I have not seen your supposed dictionary definitions posted in this thread.....but even most modern dictionaries generally list republic and democracy as synonyms.

You're making vague reference to an article you haven't cited, quoted, or linked to in any way. While I'm citing the dictionary ...4 times, the Federalist Papers, and James Madison.

Directly.

Try again, this time with actual evidence.

didnt address Arizona again....hmmmm


democracy go to the section entitled "towards a representative democracy"
then scrooll down to where in big capital letters says REPUBLIC or a DEMOCRACY

 

[Skylar]

Evidence like this:

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

-James Madison, Federalist Paper 10.

A description that matches the definitions I've cited perfectly.

first he doesn't define democracy in general...just a pure democracy

then he qualifies even that definition....i.e. creates a new one, by saying" by which I mean "

False. He clarifies with 'by which I mean'. Madison's argument is quite specific. At no point does he equate democracy with a republic. Nor does the dictionary in the early 1800s.

The only one saying that he is creating a 'new definition', is you. His usage is perfectly in line with those given in the dictionary.

If you have evidence, present it. But you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.