As mentioned, the word 'democracy' doesn't play a role in constitution. What I think is obvious to anyone who's studied the founding doctrines is the United States is a federated republic with democratic features.
Some judges and many executive workers are appointed, not elected. With the exception of referendums, which is a feature later added, decisions on matters are not made by the citizens as a whole.
Maybe as a teacher, you'll know the answer to this Annie....were Democracies common during the founding father's era? Were there any at all?
With the exception of Athens I don't know of any. The Founders were very familiar with Plato's The Republic. They saw the pitfalls in both republic and democracy, but concluded the democracy had many more and those pitfalls were more dangerous, especially given the geographic and demographic reality of US/colonies in 1700's. It's only gotten more complicated since.
A federal DIRECT democracy is certainly dangerous! Agreed.
A representative Republic IS a form of democracy that is not as dangerous....
I have NEVER SAID we have a federal DIRECT Democracy...I count my blessing we do not...
I stick by: A constitutional Republic is a form of 'liberal' democracy.
A liberal democracy, also known as a bourgeois democracy or constitutional democracy, is a common form of representative democracy. According to the principles of liberal democracy, the elections should be free and fair, and the political process should be competitive. Political pluralism is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties.
A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic (sometimes federal republic), as the United States, India, Germany or Brazil, or a constitutional monarchy, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada or Spain. It may have a presidential system (United States, Brazil), a parliamentary system (Westminster system, UK and Commonwealth countries, Spain), or a hybrid, semi-presidential system (France).