T/F: The U.S. is a democracy

[Amelia]

Thank you, everyone.

I better understand the fierce ideological opposition some have to calling the U.S. a democracy, even though I still don't share it.

 

[candycorn]

True or False: The United States of America is a democracy.

It's a Republic

 

[The T]

Thank you, everyone.

I better understand the fierce ideological opposition some have to calling the U.S. a democracy, even though I still don't share it.

You among many millions have become too comfy into the incarnation of what Progressives gave us back in the early 1900's...what we are NOW is not what we were given.

What we have now is basterdized...for the Political elite and all for thier control over us.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

obviously you didn't think that through or you didn't even bother to read it. It was never arguing with the constitution. It was telling the history of the word republic and what it meant, particularly at that time.

The only thing that has changed from then to now is that what the Founders gave us has been basterdized into something unrecognizable from thier vision.

Other than that? The meaning doesn't change, and they'd be apalled.

You're assuming there was a single "vision". Like "original intent", I believe there was no such thing.

No assumption if you can read.

Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

[The T]

obviously you didn't think that through or you didn't even bother to read it. It was never arguing with the constitution. It was telling the history of the word republic and what it meant, particularly at that time.

The only thing that has changed from then to now is that what the Founders gave us has been basterdized into something unrecognizable from thier vision.

Other than that? The meaning doesn't change, and they'd be apalled.

You're assuming there was a single "vision". Like "original intent", I believe there was no such thing.

Read the Document...Read the Federalists...You belive wrong. You were ill-educated.

 

[Dragon]

No, he's right. In fact, the Federalist gives a really distorted picture, in that two of its three authors (Hamilton and Madison) represented opposite sides on many of the conflicts of interest that were compromised into the Constitution. Madison was more in favor of democracy than Hamilton, who was more cynical and also more in favor of aristocracy. Yet you won't see that conflict come out in the Federalist. You have to dig a bit deeper into the careers and other writings of those two men and the others who took part in the Constitution debate.

There was no single vision. There was a great controversy, and the Constitution is a huge compromise among dissenting viewpoints.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, he's right. In fact, the Federalist gives a really distorted picture, in that two of its three authors (Hamilton and Madison) represented opposite sides on many of the conflicts of interest that were compromised into the Constitution. Madison was more in favor of democracy than Hamilton, who was more cynical and also more in favor of aristocracy. Yet you won't see that conflict come out in the Federalist. You have to dig a bit deeper into the careers and other writings of those two men and the others who took part in the Constitution debate.

There was no single vision. There was a great controversy, and the Constitution is a huge compromise among dissenting viewpoints.

Thank You I appreciate that

Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

[hipeter924]

Thank you, everyone.

I better understand the fierce ideological opposition some have to calling the U.S. a democracy, even though I still don't share it.

de·moc·ra·cy

   [dih-mok-ruh-see]
noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. -> Congress/Senate

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. -> Dictionary approves of the US being democratic on this point.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. -> Bill of Rights and US Constitution

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit. ^As above.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. -> Tick.

Origin:
1525&#8211;35; < Middle French démocratie < Late Latin d&#275;mocratia < Greek d&#275;mokratía popular government, equivalent to d&#275;mo- demo- + -kratia -cracy
Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com'

They clearly have a fierce ideological hatred against the word, the dictionary clearly has to be rewritten to meet it. They can write a fierce email and complain about how 'unfair' it is, America has a democratic government, it is a republic however. Republic =/= A government without democracy, also the Founders =/= Unquestionable Gods.

 

[healthmyths]

We are a "bureaucracy"

 

[The T]

Thank you, everyone.

I better understand the fierce ideological opposition some have to calling the U.S. a democracy, even though I still don't share it.

de·moc·ra·cy

&#8194; &#8194;[dih-mok-ruh-see]
noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. -> Congress/Senate

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. -> Dictionary approves of the US being democratic on this point.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. -> Bill of Rights and US Constitution

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit. ^As above.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. -> Tick.

Origin:
1525–35; < Middle French démocratie < Late Latin d&#275;mocratia < Greek d&#275;mokratía popular government, equivalent to d&#275;mo- demo- + -kratia -cracy
Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com'

They clearly have a fierce ideological hatred against the word, the dictionary clearly has to be rewritten to meet it. They can write a fierce email and complain about how 'unfair' it is, America has a democratic government, it is a republic however. Republic =/= A government without democracy, also the Founders =/= Unquestionable Gods.

Now show us in the Constitution where the word is used?

Don't bother. It isn't there numbskull.

 

[jillian]

A "representative republic" IS a democracy. But you're wrong, because:

I'm not wrong. A representative republic is NOT a democracy because the majority does not rule... they do not polll people (especially back in the day) to decide how they should vote in congress. if they did, there would have been a very different result this week.

That makes it NOT representative, and therefore not a democracy.

you're talking about 'demographics'.... there were no demographics then... it was white males. representative refers to who votes... not who those people vote for, necessarily.

Obviously not -- I would call slavery oppression of a minority, wouldn't you? And how about the Trail of Tears?

When I say we're supposed to be a democracy, I mean now, not in 1789. The Constitution has been amended to make the system more democratic, and all states have dropped the property qualifications for voting; also, racial and gender bars to voting are now illegal.

you can't impose current definitions on people who startes something more than 200 years ago. blacks were not considered full people, much less a "minority". that has since been extrapolated out, by virtue of constitutional amendments and court decisions to reflect current mores and values. but the founding fathers, who the right likes to say we should still think like, would have been appalled at the thought of black people being considered part of the republic.

by freedom from tyranny of the majority, i mean the court protects us from stupid stuff the executive and legislature do... such as if they were to say i was forced to say a christian prayer before school.

We are supposed to be a (representative) democracy. Or in other words, a democratic republic.

not according to any actual definition... or in fact. we don't even vote directly for our own president.

that said, i've always found discussions on this subject to be nitpicking and fairly pointless.

 

[editec]

De facto?

Its a Shamocractic DEpublic.

 

[hipeter924]

Thank you, everyone.

I better understand the fierce ideological opposition some have to calling the U.S. a democracy, even though I still don't share it.

de·moc·ra·cy

&#8194; &#8194;[dih-mok-ruh-see]
noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. -> Congress/Senate

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. -> Dictionary approves of the US being democratic on this point.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. -> Bill of Rights and US Constitution

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit. ^As above.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. -> Tick.

Origin:
1525&#8211;35; < Middle French démocratie < Late Latin d&#275;mocratia < Greek d&#275;mokratía popular government, equivalent to d&#275;mo- demo- + -kratia -cracy
Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com'

They clearly have a fierce ideological hatred against the word, the dictionary clearly has to be rewritten to meet it. They can write a fierce email and complain about how 'unfair' it is, America has a democratic government, it is a republic however. Republic =/= A government without democracy, also the Founders =/= Unquestionable Gods.

Now show us in the Constitution where the word is used?

Don't bother. It isn't there numbskull.

Constitution =/= Political Science department, just because the Chinese Constitution says there is freedom of speech doesn't mean China has freedom of speech, likewise just because a document fails to mention a word or denies its a democracy doesn't make its claims true, its just a denial.

No matter how much the founders try to deny the American Republic is democratic (not a full democracy being a republic that includes democratic elements, those elements making the system democratic), the rest of the world thinks it is, as do the majority of political scientists and sociologists, thus most dictionaries state it as such. However it is hypocritical for the US American government to call America a beacon of democracy across the world while denying it is one, fortunately the US government doesn't deny it or the US would be a laughing stock.

 

[Dragon]

[
I'm not wrong. A representative republic is NOT a democracy because the majority does not rule... they do not polll people (especially back in the day) to decide how they should vote in congress. if they did, there would have been a very different result this week.

Jillian, you are defining "democracy" as being identical in meaning to "direct democracy," and that's not correct. See the posts right above yours. Representative democracy IS democracy (as is direct democracy).

you can't impose current definitions on people who startes something more than 200 years ago.

No, but when I say "The U.S. is supposed to be a democracy," I am using the present tense. Is, not was. I recognize that the Constitution as originally set up created a mixed government with democratic portions and non-democratic portions. But today, it's supposed to be a democratic republic, which is one form of democracy.

blacks were not considered full people, much less a "minority".

Depends on who you talked to. Most people would have acknowledged that blacks are human beings, and natives likewise. The point is that the semi-democratic republic that was set up at the founding was very harsh towards minorities; harsher than our government is today. Harsher than the government of ancient Athens. But not as harsh as Nazi Germany, or even most monarchies historically.

The claim that democracy is bad for minorities is a theory-based claim that is disproven easily by reference to fact.

by freedom from tyranny of the majority, i mean the court protects us from stupid stuff the executive and legislature do... such as if they were to say i was forced to say a christian prayer before school.

Of course. The mistake is not to think that we need these protections, but to think that we need them from DEMOCRACY. We need them from GOVERNMENT. A non-democratic government, if we may judge by actual historical examples, is usually worse than a democracy in terms of imposing tyranny -- not of the majority, but of something.

Regardless of the basis of government, any liberal will agree that we need protections for the rights of people who might be trampled on by arbitrary force otherwise. No one would assert that a democracy is immune from this kind of abuse. But to say that it is particularly prone to it is simply wrong.

The reason I don't find this sort of discussion pointless is because the right uses lines like "we're a republic, not a democracy" to champion aristocracy. It's worth pointing out that that's what they're doing.

 

[Listening]

Those who favor republican government but are against democracy are, therefore, in favor of aristocracy. I am not.

More pontification from the king of crap.

Hows that one variable economy working out for you ?

 

[Dragon]

Now show us in the Constitution where the word is used?

Don't bother. It isn't there numbskull.

Neither is "separation of church and state," but most of us know that's what's meant by the language of the First Amendment. And it's quite easy to show where the Constitution has language equivalent in meaning to democracy, and calls for democracy, even if it doesn't use that exact word:

"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."

Article II, Section 2 (emphasis added).

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years"

Amendment 17 (emphasis added).

"Elected by the people" or "chosen by the people" implies democracy.

 

[Listening]

The only thing that has changed from then to now is that what the Founders gave us has been basterdized into something unrecognizable from thier vision.

Other than that? The meaning doesn't change, and they'd be apalled.

You're assuming there was a single "vision". Like "original intent", I believe there was no such thing.

Read the Document...Read the Federalists...You belive wrong. You were ill-educated.

Hamilton lied his ass off when he wrote the Federalist Papers. I am only sorry Burr didn't put one in his balls before blowing his head off. Could not have happened to a more deserving guy.

Keep in mind the government they were under when the Federalists were written. It was set of independent colonies that liked it that way except they could not fend off foriegn intruders or have good commerce if they all behaved like countries.

So for a very distinct and restricted set of reasons, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and started anew. You will notice that nobody was arguing that they were not giving enough power to the federal government. All the assurances were that the states would still be strong except in those limited areas. I particular like 10/39/44/45/46 in that regard. Hamilton even penned some of this himself.

How is that, given this environment, the left thinks there is any validity to their claim about the General Welfare clause essentially giving them unlimited power when it is clear that the fight was to convice states that only the most necessary power was being given to the fed. The states were pushing to stay independent.

It boggles the mind.

 

[Listening]

Now show us in the Constitution where the word is used?

Don't bother. It isn't there numbskull.

Neither is "separation of church and state," but most of us know that's what's meant by the language of the First Amendment. And it's quite easy to show where the Constitution has language equivalent in meaning to democracy, and calls for democracy, even if it doesn't use that exact word:

"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."

Article II, Section 2 (emphasis added).

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years"

Amendment 17 (emphasis added).

"Elected by the people" or "chosen by the people" implies democracy.

Hahahahaha

There were state funded churches up through the mid 1830's with no serious challenges. The first amendment was never seen as a preventative to states doing their own thing when it came ot religion.

In fact, it was the very reason Jefferson wrote his little letter to the D.B.s Because he was being blasted at the pulpit by all the congregationalists ministers in the north.

And nobody thought it was wrong.

 

[Listening]

Thank you, everyone.

I better understand the fierce ideological opposition some have to calling the U.S. a democracy, even though I still don't share it.

de·moc·ra·cy

&#8194; &#8194;[dih-mok-ruh-see]
noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. -> Congress/Senate

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. -> Dictionary approves of the US being democratic on this point.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. -> Bill of Rights and US Constitution

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit. ^As above.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. -> Tick.

Origin:
1525–35; < Middle French démocratie < Late Latin d&#275;mocratia < Greek d&#275;mokratía popular government, equivalent to d&#275;mo- demo- + -kratia -cracy
Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com'

They clearly have a fierce ideological hatred against the word, the dictionary clearly has to be rewritten to meet it. They can write a fierce email and complain about how 'unfair' it is, America has a democratic government, it is a republic however. Republic =/= A government without democracy, also the Founders =/= Unquestionable Gods.

Now show us in the Constitution where the word is used?

Don't bother. It isn't there numbskull.

And for a good reason...

From federalist 10:

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.

 

[The T]

Now show us in the Constitution where the word is used?

Don't bother. It isn't there numbskull.

Neither is "separation of church and state," but most of us know that's what's meant by the language of the First Amendment. And it's quite easy to show where the Constitution has language equivalent in meaning to democracy, and calls for democracy, even if it doesn't use that exact word:

"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."

Article II, Section 2 (emphasis added).

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years"

Amendment 17 (emphasis added).

"Elected by the people" or "chosen by the people" implies democracy.

NO...you get it wrong as do you the intent...

The SCOTUS got is wrong as well.

The intent was practicing religion without anyone saying anything against it, and as well as the Government not establishing a State religion as was the case of the Crown and the parliment in Great Britain.

YOU may STFU. Poster 'Listening' has it correct as well regarding the letter sent to the Danbury Baptists by Thomas Jefferson.