Is America a Republic, or, a Democracy?!?!?

Once again, Paul...Merriam Webster means nothing...Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington...now those entries would carry weight. Our country's framers intentionally refrained from making us a mob-run country, and for that I am grateful.

Remember...nomenclature means little. The operation of a country means so much more. The most repressive government of the 20th Century (at least during the Cold War era) was the "People's Republic of Albania." It wasn't a government of the people...and it certainly wasn't a republic. I'm less worried about what it's called than I am how it functions.

I will agree to a point...we are indeed a Republic, and there are some facets of our society that are elected democratically.

However, we have become far too democratic. IMHO, one of the worst mistakes our country has made was the enacting of the 17th Amendment in 1913. To that point, members of the US House of Representatives were elected democratically--and Senators were appointed by the states. The 17th Amendment allowed for popular election of Senators. Big mistake--that began (or accelerated) the federal power grab, because the interest of the states has been diminished.

I'd love to see the 17th Amendment repealed...and then enact the 28th Amendment, which would impose a two-term limit on all Congressmen.

 

Actually, if you don't know something, then you are, by definition, ignorant when it comes to that subject. Everyone in this thread and on this board is ignorant of something or other. It isn't an insult, just a statement of fact. However, in all fairness, I will admit that perhaps my frustration in trying to discuss things with other liberal posters caused me to be a little over-aggressive with you.

It's just very difficult to continue to be patient with you guys when you just repeatedly ignore everything we say just for the sake of ignoring it.

I taught history, American government, and western civ at both the college and high school levels for years, so naturally, it's a little frustrating to be told that I don't know what I'm talking about by someone who admits that he didn't even do well in high school social studies or, on another board, to be told that I don't understand the causes of the Civil War by someone who doesn't even know who Robert E. Lee was.

So far, the only two people I've had "ill will" with are two females (I won't insult the ladies on this board by calling these to harridans "ladies") who chose to attack and mock my children.

 

Exactly - we are indeed too democratic. I agree on repealing the 17th amendment. Totally changed the original intentions.

 

I actually had no problem with the 17th Amendment for a long time until a discussion I had with a history professor friend caused me to really research it.

I finally realized that it was completely inconsistent with my political beliefs in state sovereignty. Now, I strongly believe it should be repealed.

 

I too would be for a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

 

Wow....four people ready to repeal the 17th...That's one more than was in favor of the healthcare bill...and look how far it went!

 

The Communist 'Republics' are indeed accurately labeled. 'Republic' essentially means government through representation (as opposed to Democracy, in which every person has an equal vote in every issue). The main difference between the Communist republics and the American republic is that the people choose their representatives here, and don't there (or, perhaps they did choose them originally but cannot recall them, or elections are rigged, etc). Republics in history have often used hereditary represtentatives, such as the House of Lords in England, the Roman and Carthaginian Republics, and others.

The part that makes us a Federal Republic is that the individual states are soveriegn entities themselves that choose to 'confederate' into one governing body for the 'purposes of defense and trade.'

Thus, we have an executive who is elected by representatives of the states (the electoral college) and national representatives elected directly by the people (house of Representatives) and - originally, at least - a group of representatives of the states sent by the governing body of each state (the Senate). Wallah - a Federal Republic.

The original intention was to insulate the government from the whims of the people (direct election of Senators and the President) and to protect the people from the whims of the government (recalls, regular elections, right to petition, etc.) To that end, let us REPEAL THE 17TH AMMENDMENT...

 

He's not saying you're dumb, just that you don't know something. We are all ignorant of something(s) out there. I am definitely ignorant of plenty. Doesn't make me dumb.

A soothing answer always stems a tide of anger.

Don't get so sensitive about a word man. Nobody (as far as I can tell) think you're dumb, you have just stated something that is in error. This is part of the correcting process. If you can't take correction, don't participate in the debate forums.

 

You are theoretically correct.

I wish it were so...

The soveriegn part really could mean that the Feds should not even suggest such an idea. :tonofbricks:

Supreme court decisions have changed the interpretation of some of the wordings in the constitution to give the Federal authority more leeway. Even Hamilton, the brains behind the Federal idea changed his own interpretations when Secretary...

We just have to live with and vote against what we have now, I guess.

 

Not wishing to hijack this thread, but to use an example to make a point:
There is a whole debate BB forum on the Bible translations and the KJVo vs more recent translations. (If one wishes to debate this further......PLEASE go there as this is not the topic of this thread... but is useful in presenting an example.) What is the greatest reason for preference in translation for most 'common' folk? ......Recent translations use contemporary English and is more easy to understand and read. Words do change by usage and understanding over periods of time.

To understand the meaning of these words used by our founding fathers it is best to consult those sources of the period of their time; their writings which disclose their meticulous discussions of ideas and philosophy, and those writings and documents which they used as the source material for their ideas, and the dictionaries and other defining materials which explain best the meanings of term. They wrote, often carefully and very precisely, but used complex sentence structure..... difficult reading at first... but ease increases with practice.

 

I find this poll most seriously disturbing: The confusion over terms speaks to the very essence of our understanding and identity in form of government.

 

I dislike the "Not sure, don't care" option. I'm not sure but I do care!

 

The government of the USA started out as a representitive democratic constitutional republic. With each state being guaranteed a "republican form of government" by the U.S. constitution.

It has since morphed into a mammoth centralized kleptocracy with the states and their people being little more than it's slaves just as T. Jefferson predicted.

 

>The government of the USA started out as a representitive democratic constitutional republic.

Under the Articles of Confederation. Anyone think it was happenstance that we ended up with our present government? How could our Constitution produced any other kind of government?

 

Kleptocracy -- now, there's a word I was taught to associate with corrupt and exploitative governments that steal ruthlessly and relentlessly from the people. It's a word, in fact, that's usually applied to flawed or failed governments in Africa, Latin America, or the nether regions of Asia. Such governments are typically led by autocratic strong men who shower themselves and their cronies with all the fruits of extracted wealth, whether stolen from the people or squeezed from their country's natural resources. It's not a word you're likely to see associated with a mature republic like the United States led by disinterested public servants and regulated by more-or-less transparent principles and processes.

In fact, when Americans today wish to critique or condemn their government, the typical epithets used are "socialism" or "fascism." When my conservative friends are upset, they send me emails with links to material about "ObamaCare" and the like. These generally warn of a future socialist takeover of the private realm by an intrusive, power-hungry government. When my progressive friends are upset, they send me emails with links pointing to an incipient fascist takeover of our public and private realms, led by that same intrusive, power-hungry government (and, I admit it, I'm hardly innocent when it comes to such "what if" scenarios).

What if, however, instead of looking at where our government might be headed, we took a closer look at where we are -- at the power-brokers who run or influence our government, at those who are profiting and prospering from it? These are, after all, the "winners" in our American world in terms of the power they wield and the wealth they acquire. And shouldn't we be looking as well at those Americans who are losing -- their jobs, their money, their homes, their healthcare, their access to a better way of life -- and asking why?

If we were to take an honest look at America's blasted landscape of "losers" and the far shinier, spiffier world of "winners," we'd have to admit that it wasn't signs of onrushing socialism or fascism that stood out, but of staggeringly self-aggrandizing greed and theft right in the here and now. We'd notice our public coffers being emptied to benefit major corporations and financial institutions working in close alliance with, and passing on remarkable sums of money to, the representatives of "the people." We'd see, in a word, kleptocracy on a scale to dazzle. We would suddenly see an almost magical disappearing act being performed, largely without comment, right before our eyes.

Campaign For Liberty