What is a Republic ?

You didn't read the definition I quoted.

 

Because there is always someone who didn't vote for the person who won. The last presidential election was roughly 53% to 46%. This means 46% of the people are not happy with the elected representative.

 

Stubborn, aren't you?

 

The precise term for our form of government is a democratic-republic.

 

I agree. The Republicans in their present form do not deserve the name. Republic with the Democracy we have is the best thing ever put together by man on this earth. We could sum up a new name for the two parties together. The Great Coalition of Thieves.

 

Kind of like saying Christian believer.

 

The party name republican has nothing to do with it's current values. In fact, Lincoln started the party then freed the slaves. Nixon turned the party to it's current conservative brand by getting the Southern democrats to abandon the democratic party during the civil rights movement.

The party you're thinking of is Federalist.

 

I got this from an old history book. We elect most of our officials by direct vote, and they in turn represent us in government. The only election left where we elect people to elect an office is the President and Vice President. Election of US Senators used to be through state legislatures. So, we use both democracy and a republic.

 

I would take the Fedrealist or the Whigs over what we have now.

 

>>The precise term for our form of government is a democratic-republic.


>Kind of like saying Christian believer.


Not exactly. Everyone who believes (in something) is not a Christian.

Any government that is not a monarchy is a republic. Either it is hereditary or it is not.

 

That's not true.

 

A republic is rule by law. A democracy is rule by the majority. Basically.

In a republic the inalienable rights of the individual are recognized.

In a democracy the individual's inalienable rights are sacrificed for the public good.

So, when your government asks (demands) you to give up liberty (inalienable rights) for safety (public good) it is asking (demanding) you to give up your republican form of government. How many republicans have I heard argue in favor of giving up their republican form of government? The majority of them. Now, why is that I wonder? Maybe they just don't know the difference between a republican form of government and a democracy. Maybe they just don't care. Maybe they're just too afraid of letting other men live in freedom.

Maybe they actually believe if they'll give up their liberty in exchange for safety the government will really protect them. The history of fallen republics shows them to be fools unfortunately.

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)


Well James, it looks as though you were right again.

At any rate the type of government we now have in the United States is best described (imho) as a kleptocracy.

 

Do you mean like warrant less wire taps and how you can't carry a gun on a plane?

 

What I mean by the individual's inalienable rights are sacrificed for the public good. Is collectivism.

The belief that the interests of the collective outweigh the interests of the individual.

If you were trying to make some point by asking, now's the time to make it. :smilewinkgrin:

 

No need asking, you're saying government can spy as long as we're not communist (reads done by Democrats). :thumbsup:

 

Random House good enough? Note #3 below thus the USSR was a republic - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.






re⋅pub⋅lic


–noun 1. 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. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state. 4. (initial capital letter) any of the five periods of republican government in France. 5. (initial capital letter, italics) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

Origin:
1595–1605; < F république, MF < L rēs pūblica, equiv. to rēs thing, entity + pūblica



Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

 

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: in-'Al-y&-n&-b&l, -'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights> —in·alien·abil·i·ty /-"Al-y&-n&-'bi-l&-tE, -"A-lE-&-/ noun —in·alien·ably adverb


Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Seems to me that if one's government cancels a theoretical right, then pragmatically the right was not inalienable.

Anyway, how would a government prevent one from chasing after happiness?

And the people on death row, do they also have an inalienable right to life and liberty? If a right can be superceded then it is a relative right, not an inalienable right (absolute).

 

This is one of the best and concise explanations which captures the concepts of "republic". Thanks Poncho


As for LB. Either dense or joking...... Republic has nothing to do with surveilance and spying on its citizens. Don't confuse 'republic' with the party 'republicans'. Neither should he confuse the party 'democrat' with 'democracy'.

When I think of 'republic'..... I think of government of, by, and for the people.....getting its consent from the people and subject to change and even overthrow if it exceeds the boundaries of its limitations which fail to observe the equality of its citizens and the power of the citizendry. It's design is intended to be a class-less society and its success is dependant on the moral constraints of its citizens which maintain a balance between the freedoms exercised and expressed by each member with respect for the rights of others. The rule of its citizens is in the common law ....... which should be simple and understandable by the common man without the excessive complexities of regulations or exaggerated definitions which require specialties of knowledge in order to be governed or to comply with law. It is the least form of government power required for a nation to exist. While its government may share in democracy's similarities of choosing its representation and leadership by common voting..... there is a basic foundation of law/morals/ethics which is observant and limiting and prevents a majority from oppressing a few or the vunerable and weak. It recognizes and respects the private ownership and use of property, the freedom from control or regulation which licenses or prevents the individuals use of talents, skills, learning, or his own resources or invention for his good and that which he wishes to share or exchange. Ideally, it is so well designed and integrated in its separation of powers and its checks and balances that it is not immune from its citizens to impact upon any excess of power. It is built upon transparancy and mutual trust..... with the citizen as the watcher..... and the government open to scutiny, critique, and obligation in its response.

I know our founding fathers formed and fashioned a republic..... but bit by bit..... we've neglected our God given liberties to succum to fears for security and protection for which we've allowed the bondage to license and regulation, taxes and fiat money system, consolidation and concentration of powers, business, and industry...... and government intrusion into every aspect of our lives..... both public and private.

George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, ect. ect., would not recognize the current expression of our government as the one they founded or intended us to keep and maintain.

The last thing which happens before a government falls ......is the looting of the public wealth by those who rule.

 

This is exactly what we are seeing today. We're being robbed blind while (almost) everyone is distracted by arguing about which party is the lesser of two evils and which party is better suited to carry out the statist interventionism desired by the "majority". Below is what I think of when I think about our republic.

IF the Founding Fathers who put together our Constitution HAD wanted a democracy for this country they would NOT have put in such "checks and balances" as the Electoral College (which checks against the majority) or the arduous amendment procedure, the Bill of Rights, and so on. They would have just let the majority decide.

Asked what sort of government they had set up, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A Republic -- if you can keep it!"

And, make no mistake, by "republic" they didn't mean merely a representative democracy. By no means of interpretation! They meant a government whose scope of authority was LEGALLY LIMITED by a device called a written CONSTITUTION. Jefferson said, let me hear no more about having trust and confidence in the men of government -- but rather BIND THEM DOWN BY THE CHAINS of the Constitution!

A republic is a government whose scope of authority is limited by law. The officials of government would be under explicit limitations as to what they could and could not do. The men in government were expressly forbidden to pass ex post facto laws or bills of attainder. The Bill of Rights would not allow Congress to pass laws setting up a monopoly Church or abridging freedom of religious worship, or of speech or of peaceful assembly, etc. In other words, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights said to the officials of the national government, "You can't do this, and you can't do that -- and, if we forgot to explicitly mention anything important, we've got the 9th and 10th Amendments which say you can't do that either!"


No, they didn't set up a democracy, representative or otherwise. The Bill of Rights would not have been ncessary if they wanted to let the majority decide the issues. It was a republic for which they stood -- a government of legally limited authority.


Limited? Limited by what principle? By the principle of the natural individual rights of peaceful men.


"Rights" are enclaves of freedom and privacy of people as individuals which are off-limits to the interference of other people, including any majority. The only proper function of government is to secure these rights of individuals in their persons and properties from being violated by the initiation of the use of violence or fraud by either criminals or foreign aggressors.

This position, from the original text of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, outlines the proper scope and limits of jurisdiction for government, the institution that wields legal force in society.

Again, it is the principle of individual rights which is the standard -- NOT majority whim. Amd, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, whenever government becomes destructive to its proper function (i.e., securing rights from crime by protecting people from criminals), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and start over.


Note that it would NOT be legitimate for any majority of people to alter or abolish a proper government and replace it with one that, by deliberate policy, violates the rights of peaceful people. No magic number -- not even fifty percent plus one -- can transform an act that is wrong and criminal if committed by an individual (such as murder or theft) into a collecltive right. Jefferson did not advocate majority rule. The "consent of the governed" applies to choosing the officials who will administer a proper government -- not in "legitimizing" tyranny. The Bill of Rights recognized this. Note that the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law abridging" various freedoms. It does NOT say "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom UNLESS A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT IT TO DO SO."


In a free society, individual rights of peaceful people are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of any peaceful individual, or any minority of peaceful individuals.


SOURCE.

As I said earlier, today our form of government more closely resembles a kleptocracy (kleptocratic democracy?) than a constitutional republic. At any rate we're now ruled by people who don't even hold a public office. Those who do hold public office only act as the go betweens for those who hold the real power and the masses who's wealth they are stealing.