What is the difference between a representative democracy and a republic?
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.
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.
Previous comments...
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?
Ironically, there is only ONE NATION on Earth with a republican form, and most of its people don't know it.
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?
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.
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."
. . .
“ 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.
Republic = Delegated Vote
Np meed to muddy the waters.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
- - - 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.
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.