The Great RW myth about the Founders' meaning of 'Republic'.

[BluesLegend]

Liberals believe an elite ruling class should rule and make decisions for the people, because the people are too stupid to make decisions and elect the right people e.g. liberals. Constrained by the Constitution they work to undermine it, packing the courts with activists who 'interpret' the Constitution e.g. twist its meaning to suit the liberal agenda.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.

A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1. Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate. They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason. To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[BluesLegend]

Context...when the Constitution was drafted the world was dominated by tyrannical corrupt monarchies and ruling classes that abused the people. In many countries the people were not allowed to keep and bare arms, only the ruling classes. This was the context in which the Constitution was drafted. Living in those times the founders did what they could to safeguard the people from this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?

But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...

what did he say? Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?

The articles of confederation were he first blueprint to get far enough away from the mob rule of democracy....but it was not far enough, as the FF were keep a close eye on the correct bounds of limited .gov in order to establish Liberty for all....

The Articles were abandoned as a failure, and have nothing to do with the point of this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The people have had the power to 'vote themselves money' for over 200 years. We're still here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.

A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1. Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate. They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason. To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................

So...the reason we have a Supreme Court is to keep the 51% from doing tyrannical things such as denying gays equal rights, denying women abortion rights, denying racial minorities the right to do business where they choose,

those are the kind of things that make not having a 'pure' demcracy so important to you?

 

[Muhammed]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.

There is no credible evidence Jefferson ever said that. Sorry.

There is actually no source to discredit or dispute the authenticity in respect to this particular quote from Jefferson, as respondents to Founders quotes often use to further their argument. I will also point out to you, that Jefferson was in Paris and not present during the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. Interesting that you would choose him as some form of "authority" into knowing how this country would best serve the people. Putting all your eggs into one Founder overseas, therefore does not accurately speak to the views of all the Founders ... does it?

Your evidence in what the Founders had desired to best serve and represent the people, looks rather thin on the subject, sorry for your luck.

Perhaps you can try again when you have enough quotes at your disposal that more accurately reflects the views of ALL the Founders. At the very least, you could choose a Founder who was present to participate in drafting that very document you care to criticize..

The US Constitution is what ALL the founders agreed upon and signed.

 

[jillian]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

do they understand anything about how this government is supposed to run?

i haven't seen evidence of it.

 

[jillian]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.

There is no credible evidence Jefferson ever said that. Sorry.

There is actually no source to discredit or dispute the authenticity in respect to this particular quote from Jefferson, as respondents to Founders quotes often use to further their argument. I will also point out to you, that Jefferson was in Paris and not present during the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. Interesting that you would choose him as some form of "authority" into knowing how this country would best serve the people. Putting all your eggs into one Founder overseas, therefore does not accurately speak to the views of all the Founders ... does it?

Your evidence in what the Founders had desired to best serve and represent the people, looks rather thin on the subject, sorry for your luck.

Perhaps you can try again when you have enough quotes at your disposal that more accurately reflects the views of ALL the Founders. At the very least, you could choose a Founder who was present to participate in drafting that very document you care to criticize..

The US Constitution is what ALL the founders agreed upon and signed.

bummer you have no clue what it means.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

do they understand anything about how this government is supposed to run?

i haven't seen evidence of it.

They certainly don't understand the point I made about Jefferson as is evidenced by the replies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.

A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1. Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate. They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason. To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................

It's ironic that you point that out. We never cease to hear conservatives complain about the handful of 'unelected tyrannical judges' on the SCOTUS;

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives rail against 'direct democracy' constantly, EXCEPT that once in awhile when direct democracy does something they like,

and then OMG they love it!!!

Classic example, the California Prop 8 referendum. Referendums such as those in CA are in fact 'direct democracy'.

Did conservatives call that 'mob rule'? No they thought it was the best thing ever.

When a judge then ruled against it, did they cheer that as an example of 'checks and balances' to protect the minority against tyranny of the majority?

No, they threw a fit.

That's how having no principles works.

 

[jillian]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

do they understand anything about how this government is supposed to run?

i haven't seen evidence of it.

They certainly don't understand the point I made about Jefferson as is evidenced by the replies.

they love to talk about the federalist papers while being clueless that it's author wanted a strong centralized government

and they pretend they like the constitution, yet support every violation of it.... while misinterpreting the extent of the 2nd ....which is the only part of the constitution they care about. they certainly have no interest in the equal protection clause or the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments.

 

[eagle1462010]

Conservatives rail against 'direct democracy' constantly, EXCEPT that once in awhile when direct democracy does something they like,

and then OMG they love it!!!

Classic example, the California Prop 8 referendum. Referendums such as those in CA are in fact 'direct democracy'.

Did conservatives call that 'mob rule'? No they thought it was the best thing ever.

When a judge then ruled against it, did they cheer that as an example of 'checks and balances' to protect the minority against tyranny of the majority?

No, they threw a fit.

That's how having no principles works.

And the courts through it out...........whether we like the end result or not............REPUBLIC.

 

[owebo]

Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?

But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...

what did he say? Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?

The articles of confederation were he first blueprint to get far enough away from the mob rule of democracy....but it was not far enough, as the FF were keep a close eye on the correct bounds of limited .gov in order to establish Liberty for all....

The Articles were abandoned as a failure, and have nothing to do with the point of this thread.

The point is above your education level....

 

[eagle1462010]

The Republic is a form of Democracy you twit...............With a System of Checks and Balances voted on by the people.

A pure Democracy is 50% plus 1 can tyrannize the 50% minus 1. Giving the 3 branches prevents this and gives an equal voice to the states with lower populations in the Senate. They made it hard to pass new laws for a reason. To prevent Tyranny as seen by the Romans and Ancient Greece..................

It's ironic that you point that out. We never cease to hear conservatives complain about the handful of 'unelected tyrannical judges' on the SCOTUS;

appointed by whom you twit..............appointed by executive branch......confirmed by the senate..................THE STATES YOU TWIT.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Muhammed]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Jefferson was not advocating that our nation would be best represented as a democracy in accurately serving and determining the overall interests of its citizens. The closest form of a pure government we could have centers around the establishment of a republic in representing the needs of ALL its people.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd president of the United States.

There is no credible evidence Jefferson ever said that. Sorry.

There is actually no source to discredit or dispute the authenticity in respect to this particular quote from Jefferson, as respondents to Founders quotes often use to further their argument. I will also point out to you, that Jefferson was in Paris and not present during the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. Interesting that you would choose him as some form of "authority" into knowing how this country would best serve the people. Putting all your eggs into one Founder overseas, therefore does not accurately speak to the views of all the Founders ... does it?

Your evidence in what the Founders had desired to best serve and represent the people, looks rather thin on the subject, sorry for your luck.

Perhaps you can try again when you have enough quotes at your disposal that more accurately reflects the views of ALL the Founders. At the very least, you could choose a Founder who was present to participate in drafting that very document you care to criticize..

The US Constitution is what ALL the founders agreed upon and signed.

bummer you have no clue what it means.

Projection.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives rail against 'direct democracy' constantly, EXCEPT that once in awhile when direct democracy does something they like,

and then OMG they love it!!!

Classic example, the California Prop 8 referendum. Referendums such as those in CA are in fact 'direct democracy'.

Did conservatives call that 'mob rule'? No they thought it was the best thing ever.

When a judge then ruled against it, did they cheer that as an example of 'checks and balances' to protect the minority against tyranny of the majority?

No, they threw a fit.

That's how having no principles works.

And the courts through it out...........whether we like the end result or not............REPUBLIC.

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

do they understand anything about how this government is supposed to run?

i haven't seen evidence of it.

They certainly don't understand the point I made about Jefferson as is evidenced by the replies.

they love to talk about the federalist papers while being clueless that it's author wanted a strong centralized government

and they pretend they like the constitution, yet support every violation of it.... while misinterpreting the extent of the 2nd ....which is the only part of the constitution they care about. they certainly have no interest in the equal protection clause or the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments.

I know. They always invoke the federalist papers when conservative views are more closely represented by the anti-federalists of the times.