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

[hipeter924]

America is democratic, but its constitutional republic at least officially. Unofficially there is bureaucratic hierarchy, political corruption and special interest groups that either undermine or influence the policies of the government which people elect.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

America is democratic, but its constitutional republic at least officially. Unofficially there is bureaucratic hierarchy, political corruption and special interest groups that either undermine or influence the policies of the government which people elect.

I am going to repost Article 4 one more time

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 United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

This is what it says. Now there is a link in section 4 that leads you to the definition of Republican government


Republic
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW

In the context of the United States, both definitions apply.
The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Middleoftheroad]

America is democratic, but its constitutional republic at least officially. Unofficially there is bureaucratic hierarchy, political corruption and special interest groups that either undermine or influence the policies of the government which people elect.

I am going to repost Article 4 one more time

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 United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

This is what it says. Now there is a link in section 4 that leads you to the definition of Republican government


Republic
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW

In the context of the United States, both definitions apply.
The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

From wikipedia

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This is known as representative democracy. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics

It is impossible to accurately describe the government without using both words republic and democracy.
Further the republicans seek more power for the states, which often DO vote on laws through direct democracy. So you could say that republicans want direct democracy.
This whole argument is nothing more then a partisan argument basically trying to say that "we are better because we have a better name" which is pretty lame in itself. Because the names have very little meaning for their party. Even the party name "republicans" comes from the democratic party which was originally named the democratic-republican party.

Edit: forgot the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States

 

[Dragon]

it's not supposed to be a "democracy". it was never intended to be a democracy. when it was established, it was established as a representative republic

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

because only landed white male gentry were supposed to vote and run things.

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

it also isn't a democracy because that same white male landed gentry protected the minority from a tyranny of the majority.

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.

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

 

[paulitician]

Anyone remember the 'Pledge of Allegiance?' Do they even do that in schools anymore? Anyway,recite the Pledge of Allegiance and you'll get your answer to this question.

 

[old navy]

Anyone remember the 'Pledge of Allegiance?' Do they even do that in schools anymore? Anyway,recite the Pledge of Allegiance and you'll get your answer to this question.

yep, we do the pledge to the flag every morning. And believe it or not, most of my students stand up and recite it with me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

America is democratic, but its constitutional republic at least officially. Unofficially there is bureaucratic hierarchy, political corruption and special interest groups that either undermine or influence the policies of the government which people elect.

I am going to repost Article 4 one more time

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 United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

This is what it says. Now there is a link in section 4 that leads you to the definition of Republican government


Republic
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW

In the context of the United States, both definitions apply.
The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

From wikipedia

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This is known as representative democracy. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics

It is impossible to accurately describe the government without using both words republic and democracy.
Further the republicans seek more power for the states, which often DO vote on laws through direct democracy. So you could say that republicans want direct democracy.
This whole argument is nothing more then a partisan argument basically trying to say that "we are better because we have a better name" which is pretty lame in itself. Because the names have very little meaning for their party. Even the party name "republicans" comes from the democratic party which was originally named the democratic-republican party.

Edit: forgot the link
Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OH WOW wikipedia trumps the Constitution?

 

[Dragon]

Anyone remember the 'Pledge of Allegiance?' Do they even do that in schools anymore? Anyway,recite the Pledge of Allegiance and you'll get your answer to this question.

No, the pledge only says that the U.S. is a republic. It does NOT say that the U.S. is not a democracy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it's not supposed to be a "democracy". it was never intended to be a democracy. when it was established, it was established as a representative republic

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

because only landed white male gentry were supposed to vote and run things.

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

it also isn't a democracy because that same white male landed gentry protected the minority from a tyranny of the majority.

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.

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

Blacks and Indians were not recognized as citizens.
Blacks at the signing of the 14th amendment and the Indians weren't recognized until the early part of the 20th century.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

I am going to repost Article 4 one more time
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

This is what it says. Now there is a link in section 4 that leads you to the definition of Republican government


Republic
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW

In the context of the United States, both definitions apply.
The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

From wikipedia

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This is known as representative democracy. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics

It is impossible to accurately describe the government without using both words republic and democracy.
Further the republicans seek more power for the states, which often DO vote on laws through direct democracy. So you could say that republicans want direct democracy.
This whole argument is nothing more then a partisan argument basically trying to say that "we are better because we have a better name" which is pretty lame in itself. Because the names have very little meaning for their party. Even the party name "republicans" comes from the democratic party which was originally named the democratic-republican party.

Edit: forgot the link
Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OH WOW wikipedia trumps the Constitution?

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 T]

From wikipedia

It is impossible to accurately describe the government without using both words republic and democracy.
Further the republicans seek more power for the states, which often DO vote on laws through direct democracy. So you could say that republicans want direct democracy.
This whole argument is nothing more then a partisan argument basically trying to say that "we are better because we have a better name" which is pretty lame in itself. Because the names have very little meaning for their party. Even the party name "republicans" comes from the democratic party which was originally named the democratic-republican party.

Edit: forgot the link
Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OH WOW wikipedia trumps the Constitution?

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OH WOW wikipedia trumps the Constitution?

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.

Exactly

 

[Dragon]

Blacks and Indians were not recognized as citizens.

That doesn't change the fact that they were persecuted minorities. In fact, the idea that democracies are especially bad about persecuting minorities has no basis in fact. If we had to pick a government that was THE WORST in all history for persecuting minorities, surely no other candidate stacks up to Nazi Germany.

Which was many things, but a democracy it was not.

 

[JWBooth]

Oligarchy with lots of window dressing.

 

[The T]

Blacks and Indians were not recognized as citizens.

That doesn't change the fact that they were persecuted minorities. In fact, the idea that democracies are especially bad about persecuting minorities has no basis in fact. If we had to pick a government that was THE WORST in all history for persecuting minorities, surely no other candidate stacks up to Nazi Germany.

Which was many things, but a democracy it was not.

What is it with you leftists and your utter fascination with Nazis?

 

[Steelplate]

So... blacks and Indians weren't added till later... so that means things changed, right? So.... what are you guys saying? You want to go back to the good old days where only white land owners are allowed to vote?

Just Curious as to what the **** you're getting at.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

OH WOW wikipedia trumps the Constitution?

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.

Do you even realize that you just admitted that it was also a representative democracy?

 

[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.

Do you even realize that you just admitted that it was also a representative democracy?

I admit to the same thing that Franklin said..."A Republic...if you can keep it..."

Why are so many of you in denial?

 

[Middleoftheroad]

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.

Do you even realize that you just admitted that it was also a representative democracy?

I admit to the same thing that Franklin said..."A Republic...if you can keep it..."

Why are so many of you in denial?

Here I will point it out for you. From my earlier post

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This is known as representative democracy. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828

what you said

Other than that? The meaning doesn't change,

 

[konradv]

OH WOW wikipedia trumps the Constitution?

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.