Democratic Republic?

[ezrider]

Here in the United States we do not have a pure form of democracy, but rather a democratic republic. I have heard this argument used in defense of the upholding electoral college for electing the president, but I can not accept that defense.

What is it that makes our form of government a republic? Does the way we choose to elect a president make it then a republic? Or do we consider it a democratic republic because we employ three equal branches of government between the executive, legislative and judicial branches?

The legislative branch being those democratically elected within the state and within localized districts to represent the people of the state before the republic. This branch contains two houses, the Congress and the Senate. One house represents the states equally among them, the other represents the peoples of the states proportionally.

Wasn't Rome once upon a time considered a republic even though Caesar was it's head? What does having a democratic republic form of government have anything to do with electing a president?

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

Majority does not rule.

 

[Nathan12]

What is it that makes our form of government a republic?

Here's your answer:
'A constitutional democratic republic is a type of government based on the principles of a constitution in which officials elected by the people represent the people in the legislative and governing processes. A constitutional republic is not a direct democracy in that a mere plurality of the voters does not get to control the processes of the government directly.

The United States is an example of a constitutional democratic republic. The government is run according to the principles of an established Constitution, and the people do not pass laws based on a direct majority. Rather, they elect representatives to a legislative body who can then represent their interests but who can only pass laws that adhere to the principles of the Constitution.

One of the main principles of the U.S. Constitution is the division of powers among the three parts of the government, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, through a system of checks and balances...'
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/constitutional-democratic-republic-94535bfb08c336da

The Constitution of the United States is under direct attack at present by the legislative and judicial branches. And Mr. Trump has allowed a lot of nonsense to go unaddressed.

 

[ezrider]

Majority does not rule.

Exactly what is this supposed to mean? In a different thread you said eliminating the electoral college would lead to mob rule. Please explain how eliminating the electoral college would lead to mob rule?

 

[ezrider]

The Constitution of the United States is under direct attack at present by the legislative and judicial branches. And Mr. Trump has allowed a lot of nonsense to go unaddressed.

The constitution stands by itself. The only thing under attack is our interpretations of the constitutions. Just as the words of the scripture stands by itself, our interpretations vary greatly and cause division. There is nothing new under the sun

 

[Knotical]

The constitution may stand on its own to a point, but it is in danger of being gutted by those who find it to be in the way of their political agenda. As we saw with the prohibition of alcohol in the 30's an amendment can be overridden by another amendment. This is what they are trying to do with the second amendment.

As for the electoral college, I did at one point think we would be better off without it, but then we saw what almost happened in the last presidential election. Only by the grace of God did our electoral college uphold its duty and vote according to how each of their constituencies voted, otherwise we would be over 2 years deep into another Clinton administration, and arguably a worse one than the original.

The electoral college means that states like California and New York will not have the ultimate say in who is elected. It basically levels the playing field so each state has an equally powerful voice.

 

[ezrider]

The electoral college means that states like California and New York will not have the ultimate say in who is elected. It basically levels the playing field so each state has an equally powerful voice.

Each state is given an equally powerful voice in the legislative branch. The electoral college as currently constructed does not level the playing field so that each state has equal representation when electing the executive, it distorts it significantly.

If you wanted fair and equal representation between the states under the electoral college system, then each state should lose two of it electoral votes. Only then could you claim a level playing field with equal representation.

Also, to say that the electoral college means states like California and New York will not have the final say is just plain ignorant. The electoral college as constructed means that the 45% or so in those states who vote republican are denied their voices.

 

[Knotical]

Each state is given an equally powerful voice in the legislative branch. The electoral college as currently constructed does not level the playing field so that each state has equal representation when electing the executive, it distorts it significantly.

If you wanted fair and equal representation between the states under the electoral college system, then each state should lose two of it electoral votes. Only then could you claim a level playing field with equal representation.

If you want to go that route don't just take two away, only allow a max of two for each state. In that case we could give states who split down the middle the option to have one vote for one party, and the second vote for the other party. But then we would be making it even more difficult for third parties to run.

 

[Nathan12]

The only thing under attack is our interpretations of the constitutions.

This is false. The Constitution itself is under attack, which means that the guarantees under the Constitution are under attack. The proper role of the legislature and the judiciary is being changed drastically, so that liberal judges are now governing the country by interfering with legitimate administrative and constitutional decisions, instead of properly and honestly interpreting the Constitution. And the legislators are becoming a dishonest rabble (and rabble rousers) instead of fulfilling their responsibilities properly.

 

[ezrider]

This is false. The Constitution itself is under attack,

I saw that movie National Treasure, is someone trying to steal it? Are they in the National Archive Museum trying to tag it with spray paint?

 

[Edward]

Here in the United States we do not have a pure form of democracy, but rather a democratic republic. I have heard this argument used in defense of the upholding electoral college for electing the president, but I can not accept that defense.

What is it that makes our form of government a republic? Does the way we choose to elect a president make it then a republic? Or do we consider it a democratic republic because we employ three equal branches of government between the executive, legislative and judicial branches?

The legislative branch being those democratically elected within the state and within localized districts to represent the people of the state before the republic. This branch contains two houses, the Congress and the Senate. One house represents the states equally among them, the other represents the peoples of the states proportionally.

Wasn't Rome once upon a time considered a republic even though Caesar was it's head? What does having a democratic republic form of government have anything to do with electing a president?

That is incorrect. We have a Constitutional Republic. Don't let them get you believing that we have a democratic republic.

 

[ezrider]

That is incorrect. We have a Constitutional Republic. Don't let them get you believing that we have a democratic republic.

Sorry Edward, but your splitting hairs. The Constitution outlines the form of our democratic republic.

 

[Knotical]

I saw that movie National Treasure, is someone trying to steal it? Are they in the National Archive Museum trying to tag it with spray paint?

That was the Declaration of Independence.

 

[ezrider]

That was the Declaration of Independence.

Well just so we're clear, unlike the movie, no one is trying to steal the Constitution or deface it.

 

[Knotical]

Well just so we're clear, unlike the movie, no one is trying to steal the Constitution or deface it.

Well, steal it, no, but the Dems are certainly doing their best to at least undermine it, if not completely destroy it. One amendment at a time.

 

[Stringfellow_Hawke]

Well, steal it, no, but the Dems are certainly doing their best to at least undermine it, if not completely destroy it. One amendment at a time.

State by state.
California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, just a few that have all but declared themselves communist states. The libs in WV are trying hard to go that route.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

Well, steal it, no, but the Dems are certainly doing their best to at least undermine it, if not completely destroy it. One amendment at a time.

When was the last time the Constitution was amended? I didn't look it up. I am thinking before WWII.
Maybe there is something more recent.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

This is false. The Constitution itself is under attack, which means that the guarantees under the Constitution are under attack. The proper role of the legislature and the judiciary is being changed drastically, so that liberal judges are now governing the country by interfering with legitimate administrative and constitutional decisions, instead of properly and honestly interpreting the Constitution. And the legislators are becoming a dishonest rabble (and rabble rousers) instead of fulfilling their responsibilities properly.

Funny but some sane people worry that the president is a threat to the proper use and understanding of the constitution.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

When was the last time the Constitution was amended? I didn't look it up. I am thinking before WWII.
Maybe there is something more recent.

There have been a few amendments since WWII. They don't seem controversial to me. Limiting Presidents to two terms. A good thing. Some assurances of voting rights, a good thing. One to prevent congress a pay raise that is effective immediately to keep them from benefiting financially from their actions without facing a vote by their state to return them to office or not. A good thing.
I don't see those as undermining the constitution.

 

[JohnDB]

Just a reminder that we really don't do politics on this site guys...