What is the difference between a representative democracy and a republic?

Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 8 months ago to Politics
97 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I see posts often that state that we (USA) were not created to be a democracy (I think they mean Representative Democracy when this is said.)

I do not think people often have thought through what the difference really is, and how did our country change from a republic to a representative democracy, or have we made that change?

What are your thoughts about which we are, and what would be needed to be one or the other? Should we be one or the other or should we be a hybrid of the two?

Definitions:
May help in the discussion

Democracy: 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.

Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
    we changed to a democratic peoples republic with a single party system all right the rest was steps along the path to that end..

    Democracy became popular with the advent of socialism and is a stepping stone....

    HOWEVER

    try this one for size

    The USA is both a representative democracy and a republic.

    A representative democracy is any country which is democratic in form, with elected representatives passing laws, rather than the population as a whole (which is called direct democracy). A democracy features the following:

    A government that comes into power through elections
    Elections that are frequent, free, fair, and competitive
    Guaranteed civil rights (the right to speak out, the right to assemble and petition, etc.)
    Guaranteed political rights (the right to vote, the right to run for office)
    A free press that it is independent of the government, and multiple sources of media information
    Accountability to the voters (through elections, recall mechanisms, polls, etc.)
    Government transparency (the government generally works in the open, and corruption is limited)
    Horizontal accountability between branches of government (checks and balances)
    Internally sovereign government (the government can act without an unelected force [like the military] preventing it from ruling)
    Near-universal adult suffrage (almost all citizens of age are allowed to vote, regardless of race, religion, etc.)
    * Rule of law (the government cannot violate the constitution or basic laws at will)

    Based on this, the USA is clearly a democracy, and is, like almost all democracies (save the possible exception, Switzerland), representative.

    As for a republic, there are two definitions. One says that a country whose head of state (the ceremonial leader who calls legislatures into session, signs bills into laws, and greets foreign dignitaries) is chosen individually, rather than inheriting the office by being related by blood to the last chief of state, is a republic. Under this definition, countries like China, Russia, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe are all republics: they have no king, queen, or emperor. Many former communist countries (like East Germany, a.k.a. the German Democratic Republic) called themselves republics.

    A more restrictive definition of republic is embodied by this quote from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch." By this definition, only democratic states can be republics, since only in democracies can supreme power really rest with the people. If one uses the second definition, then all democracies are either republics or constitutional monarchies. All other countries are some variant of authoritarianism/autocracy. Political scientists don't necessarily agree on which definition to use, but the US is a republic under either definition.

    With the destruction of the Bill of Rights about the only two hopes left maybe three is Cruz and Rubio getting elected and enough Rinos in Congress rejected that's one. Military up holding it's oath of office that's two.

    Out and out shooting revolution.,

    I doubt you would find many with the stomach for it anymore

    Learn how to say We serve the party comrade and stand in line for bread.

    How can a leftist dictatorship do what the Constitution says and guarantee a Republic form of government?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 8 months ago
      A "republic" is not synonymous with a "republican form of government."

      Ironically, there is only ONE NATION on Earth with a republican form, and most of its people don't know it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky012 8 years, 8 months ago
    I believe our governmental system represents itself as a democracy while hiding it's true corporate nature. I'm not asking that you believe me, research it yourself. Go to the official gov. site and look at the country's budget. Every dollar collected goes to pay interest on the debt. Nothing for our armed forces, Social Security, Medicare. A name that is printed in all capital letters is a device used to indicate a corporation. The UNITES STATES of America is a corporation and it's sole purpose it to suck every last penny out of out pockets. A Republic for the United Stated of America is looking very good to me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 8 months ago
      The capital letter malarkey is occasionally peddled in courtrooms throughout the country and uniformly rejected. I'm amazed that anyone believes it or ever believed it. As to interest on the debt, it is indeed huge, but I think it makes up about a quarter of the budget. Still way too much, of course.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
        If possible, I remember seeing it somewhere, Find the debt service and debt service projections as a percentage of GDP and figure from that what NDP might be. As I recall it was projected to suck up a portion greater than the 8-9% don't worry about it figure. It was predicated on never paying off the principle only increasing it and with that increasing the debt service amount until both had accounted for all GDP by simultaneously stifling economic growth. The exception was when those who received the debt service held the only money available for investment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 8 years, 8 months ago
    Seems to me this all started back with the Greeks. Not everyone was eligible to vote, but those eligible voted on everything. Citizens voted. Slaves and Middle Class were not eligible. So, it really wasn't a true democracy. Today, by necessity of logistics, we are a "republic" given it would be neigh impossible for everyone to vote on everything. But then again, it would be interesting. Given the framers envisioned law making to be a slow process having everyone vote on everything would really gum up the works. Problem solved.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
      It did the middle class if there was such a thing and the slaves were not citizens. they were small enough for all citizens to vote directly. The Republic was supposed to be delegates who were controlled by the Constitution and citizens who were responsible enough to make sure their employees did their bidding.. Since that is no longer the case the terms Republic AND Democratic no longer apply. So? Benevolent Dictatorship? Hardly. Inmates running the asylum stands a better chance of acceptance as the proper description.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
      Ben_C,

      Thanks for your post. If we are a republic then in a a republic voting is something that is only available to entitled citizens, its a privileged that is in some way earned. If we are a republic how is that privileged earned today?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Ben_C 8 years, 8 months ago
        What we have today is a hybrid. Not really a true democracy or republic. Several hundred years ago when communication was word or mouth or newspaper print dissemination of political events was incredibly slow so a "republic" was a better idea . Today communication is almost instant. If one studies the education of the framers one finds they were incredibly well educated. I suspect few would be able to debate them without suffering embarrassment. While political views varied back then the course of the country ran true. Today I see Tytler's predictions coming true so I wonder if a true democracy is a good thing.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
        Primarily accident of birth. It isn't earned. Since we are no longer a Republic I suppose it doesn't matter but if we were such avenues as purchasing citizenship, the amnesty program, the standard six year program are available along with serving in the armed forces in time of war or the undeclared version thereof.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
    I put this in the wrong place, it was meant to be under ask the Gulch. If an admin sees this thread can you move it?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 8 months ago
      Based on the responses, I'd say it belongs in politics since no one so far has come close to answering the question you asked with anything but unsupported opinion.
      I do not say this to just criticize, but to point out that none of us (so far posted that is) has really researched what the founders established or how it has changed. We are all a product of the propaganda machine that continually rains disinformation on us in education, news, advertising, and entertainment content. Much of it favors "democracy" as an ideal solution resulting in a free society. Those who recognize the inherent weaknesses of "democracy" sometimes describe it as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. That is a pretty accurate description of pure "democracy" but it doesn't describe the structure of the US government and political power structure at all.
      OK, I haven't answered your question either, XR, but I have asked another Gulcher who has researched this to post here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 8 months ago
        Freedomforall is correct.
        A "republic" is not synonymous with a "republican form of government."

        CLEARING THE RFOG - - -
        . . .
        “I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
        - - - Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
        http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_A...

        “The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
        - - - Thomas Jefferson
        https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_...

        DEFINITION - - -

        REPUBLICAN FORM - that form of government wherein the people directly exercise sovereignty, and are served -not ruled- by government (and its subject citizens). The sovereign people retain possession of all their endowed and inalienable rights, powers, and liberties, and no democratic majority can vote them away. The servant government exercises power to secure rights, and only by special delegation via consent, may it govern. Though not perfect, it is the best form, securing the maximum liberty and freedom to its sovereign people.
        . . .
        For proof in support of this definition, one needs to examine many court cases and statutes, because "someone" eradicated memory of this from the people. It took over 100 years and a fortune.

        Suffice to say, the source of the republican form is the Declaration of Independence, whereas the democratic form government begins with state constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and subsequently, the U.S. constitution.

        Pursuant to the DoI, Americans are endowed by their Creator with rights and liberties.
        BUT
        Pursuant to the constitutions, citizens surrender those rights and liberties and embrace MANDATORY CIVIC DUTIES. For example, all [male] citizens, 17-45, are the militia, and can be ordered to train, fight, and die on command. Obviously, a militia man has no right to life nor liberty. And citizens are also obligated to fund government with a share of their property. Ergo, citizens have no absolute ownership of private property.

        This dichotomy fuels the mythical "sovereign citizen" movement, in which the citations that support sovereignty of the American people are confused with the citations that define the privileges of the subject citizenry. In fact, there are but two statuses in American law, sovereign and subject. And the sovereigns are in the republican form.

        A small proof to show that Americans once knew what an American sovereign was:
        .................................................................
        ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
        - - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
        (download available from http://gutenberg.org)
        .................................................................
        Likewise, to show that citizens are NOT sovereigns:

        "... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
        - - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

        CITIZEN = SUBJECT

        AMERICANS = SOVEREIGN
        . . .
        “... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS, and have none to govern but themselves.

        “... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
        - - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

        How did one change from sovereign to subject?
        CONSENT, as in "consent of the governed."


        "What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
        - - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
        http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_...

        As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

        Sound bite format:

        RFOG: Sovereign, with all endowed rights (ex: natural rights, natural liberty).

        DFOG: Subject, with only government privileges (ex: civil rights, political liberties)

        If 97% of Americans WITHDREW CONSENT from the democratic form, the remaining 3% of civic minded public servants running the government would have no power to "govern" the 97%, only secure rights, and with only 3% of the revenue, have little to waste. THIS is why the FOUNDERS originally required volunteers / citizens to (a) own property, (b) pay taxes on it, (c) owe civic duties to the State, including a lifetime of militia duty - risking one's life and limb in SERVICE. They were certainly worthy of the title "elite" for to be the leaders, they had to be the SERVANTS of all. (That all changed in 1820s, but that's a whole nuther story.)

        P.S. - since the RFOG existed BEFORE the US CON, it is definitely not a "constitutional republic."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 8 months ago
          IN CONTRAST TO THE REPUBLICAN FORM
          . . .
          “ It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
          - - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

          [... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

          Make no mistake!
          • The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
          • But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
          • The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
          • But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
          • The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
          • But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

          If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
          Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
          Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

          The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
          The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
          All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
          (The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)

          RFOG: People are sovereign with endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership of private property (explicitly protected in all constitutions).

          DFOG: Citizens are subjects with the privilege to participate in government, but surrender their birthright and embrace mandatory duties, which is why qualified ownership of estate is subject to ad valorem taxes. Subject citizens have no endowed rights to life, liberty, nor absolute ownership - saith George Washington, et al.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
          Democratic = Direct Vote
          Republic = Delegated Vote

          Np meed to muddy the waters.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 8 months ago
            No, that is a direct versus indirect democracy. In both cases, subject citizens are not sovereigns. There is no collective sovereignty in a democratic form, because the minority's sovereignty is overridden by the majority.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
              Thanks for the mud. I prefer the Constitutional Version. Now show me exactly where what you stated is in the Constitution. Like any form of PC I don't accept your version. Only the original.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 8 months ago
                USCON = supreme law of the land
                Art. 4., Sec. 4 = promises RFOG to STATES
                RFOG instituted by DoI, as plainly stated by Honest Abe, and other citations re: sovereignty
                USCON makes distinction between people and citizens.
                People have rights and powers
                Citizens have privileges and immunities
                (and are mutually exclusive)

                ERGO, the promise of the RFOG incorporates the promises made in the DoI, as part of the Supreme Law of the Land.


                Hope that helps.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
                  Clear as mud.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 8 months ago
                    TEENY TINY SOUNDBITE:
                    RFOG - - -
                    "What's YOURS is YOURS!"
                    "Do not trespass upon the person, liberty, or property of another."
                    "Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic)."

                    But if you consent, all bets are off.
                    Welcome to the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 8 months ago
                  LONG VERSION
                  In Article 4, Section 4, the people in the States are promised a republican form.

                  REPUBLICAN FORM

                  GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people,... directly...
                  - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

                  The American people have the powers of sovereignty, and DIRECTLY exercise those powers, as in absolute ownership of person, labor and property (aka "private property").

                  DEMOCRATIC FORM

                  DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."
                  - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432

                  The U.S. citizenry indirectly exercise sovereign powers via representation.

                  REPUBLIC - A commonwealth; That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independent of its form of government.
                  - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 1302

                  NOTE: The People's Republic of China is a republic - but not a republican form.

                  The “body politic” that forms the sovereignty under the DEMOCRATIC FORM can not be the people who are sovereign under the REPUBLICAN FORM of government.

                  Citizens are NOT sovereigns

                  "CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the DOMINION of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
                  - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

                  Who established the U.S. Constitution? The “people of the United States”.

                  "The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States."
                  - - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 204, (1822).

                  NOTE: at the ratification of the USCON, "all people" could not vote, since electors had to be tax paying property owners who consented to be subject citizens. Ergo, those Americans who could not ratify could not consent to the terms of the USCON. In short, the USCON is not a creation of "all American people."

                  "... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
                  - - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

                  SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
                  - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

                  A sovereign cannot simultaneously be a subject of a sovereign government.

                  DOMINION - Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. -Sovereignty; as the dominion of the seas or over a territory.
                  - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.486

                  SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly".
                  New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.

                  SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
                  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

                  A citizen submits to the DOMINION of government. In other words, the government is sovereign over the citizen. Ergo, no citizen, state or federal, can be a sovereign.

                  IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE DEMOCRACY CANNOT INFRINGE UPON ENDOWED RIGHTS OF THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE IN THE REPUBLICAN FORM?

                  " PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
                  - - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...

                  Endowed (sacred) rights are not subject to the government, the ballot, nor the democracy -
                  UNLESS you have CONSENTED, and thus waived those rights.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
                    Apparently you have a huge problem with the English Language. Thje request was for cites and definitions from the Constitution. Granted there was some of that except perhaps the definitions. The rest was a case of either dazzling with brilliance or baffling with bullshit and had nothing to do with the request. A sixty minute speech which did not answer the question as stated and could have, if it existed, been delivered in two minutes.

                    Having not proven your theory ....rejected with a note that further study is required.

                    I took five minutes by running a word search program. Nothing brilliant nor dazzling just critical research. I'll let someone else wade through all that nice to know but not germane to the question stuff. It will doubtless come in handy some day once vetted for accuracy.

                    Thank you for the leads to other resources.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 8 months ago
                      LOL - you do not comprehend.
                      The source of the republican form is the Declaration. The USCON only continues to GUARANTEE it to the STATES.
                      It existed BEFORE the USCON.
                      And as long as the next constitution preserves the RFOG, I have no objection.

                      BTW - good luck in finding an accurate definition for the RFOG. Wikipedia hard linked it to "republic" which is dead wrong.
                      This one nails it:
                      http://www.conservapedia.com/Republic...

                      FYI:
                      "... 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."
                      Art. 4, Sec. 4, USCON
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 8 months ago
                        Since the definition of the Republican Form is not derived from the USCON, you must pardon my copious references explaining exactly what it is, and how it has NOTHING to do with the USCON.

                        In fact, when I wrote to Congress asking about which laws were enacted regarding Art. 4, Sec. 4, the Congressional Research Service replied that no laws were ever enacted with respect to that clause.

                        Fascinating!
                        (As Mr Spock would say.)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 7 months ago
                          REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
                          - - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856

                          This definition admits that the USCON guarantees a form already established... but coyly fails to define what the nature of the republican form is.

                          This deliberate obfuscation has been going on for quite a long time.
                          "They" hope "we" never do find out about that form already established.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by pdohara 8 years, 8 months ago
    AFAIK, a republic means that the people have the power. We are also a representative democracy, in that we elect people to make decision on our behalf. There are other forms of democracy, nor does democracy mean that all people have equal power. Still we use the short hand democracy to mean our republic, confederated representative democracy. That would be quite the mouthful.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
      We lost confederation status in 1778 or 1779 when the Constitution was adopted prior to that the title and the system was a confederation of independent countries.

      When did we lose the status of Republic? If nothing else December 31st 2015 will do but probably with the first Patriot Act or perhaps in the 1990s when the country openly turned it's back on the Constitution. Lots of choices for that one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo