Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[jamil]

One nation under god. The word Republic falls in there as well. No mention of democracy past the MSM agenda machine.

People keep saying this. It's not necessary to point out the distinction every time someone refers to the US as a democracy. It IS a representative democracy because we choose our representatives democratically. When people refer to it as a democracy, it does not imply that they think it's a direct democracy. Direct democracies are rare.

Although it is correct to call it a democracy, it is not as accurate as calling it a constitutional republic. Calling it a democracy is accurate in a similar way to calling a '57 Chevy Impala a car. It IS a car. The US IS a democracy. It's just more accurate to call it a constitutional republic.

A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive.

But, since you bring up the MSM agenda machine. I do suspect there's something else going on when we hear woke people say things like, "They're destroying our democracy!" They have a different sort of definition for democracy than what we think of it. So "true" democracy to woke people is that it can't exist until everyone is equal. And everyone can't be equal until all the institutions are destroyed, and rebuilt from the ground up to be equitable for everyone. Sound Maoist? It's not coincidence. Long story short, "true" democracy can't exist without communism to equalize everything. So it may be the case that she has this definition in mind.

 

[BigRed]

People keep saying this. It's not necessary to point out the distinction every time someone refers to the US as a democracy. It IS a representative democracy because we choose our representatives democratically. When people refer to it as a democracy, it does not imply that they think it's a direct democracy. Direct democracies are rare.

Although it is correct to call it a democracy, it is not as accurate as calling it a constitutional republic. Calling it a democracy is accurate in a similar way to calling a '57 Chevy Impala a car. It IS a car. The US IS a democracy. It's just more accurate to call it a constitutional republic.

A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive.

But, since you bring up the MSM agenda machine. I do suspect there's something else going on when we hear woke people say things like, "They're destroying our democracy!" They have a different sort of definition for democracy than what we think of it. So "true" democracy to woke people is that it can't exist until everyone is equal. And everyone can't be equal until all the institutions are destroyed, and rebuilt from the ground up to be equitable for everyone. Sound Maoist? It's not coincidence. Long story short, "true" democracy can't exist without communism to equalize everyting.

A republic in name only.

 

[jamil]

A republic in name only.

No, not in name only. You can have a republic run by oligarchs and it's still a republic. It's just not a democratically elected republic. Now, if you say a constitutional republic in name only, I'll agree with that because we don't actually act like the constitution is the basis for rule of law.

 

[churchmouse]

People keep saying this. It's not necessary to point out the distinction every time someone refers to the US as a democracy. It IS a representative democracy because we choose our representatives democratically. When people refer to it as a democracy, it does not imply that they think it's a direct democracy. Direct democracies are rare.

Although it is correct to call it a democracy, it is not as accurate as calling it a constitutional republic. Calling it a democracy is accurate in a similar way to calling a '57 Chevy Impala a car. It IS a car. The US IS a democracy. It's just more accurate to call it a constitutional republic.

A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive.

But, since you bring up the MSM agenda machine. I do suspect there's something else going on when we hear woke people say things like, "They're destroying our democracy!" They have a different sort of definition for democracy than what we think of it. So "true" democracy to woke people is that it can't exist until everyone is equal. And everyone can't be equal until all the institutions are destroyed, and rebuilt from the ground up to be equitable for everyone. Sound Maoist? It's not coincidence. Long story short, "true" democracy can't exist without communism to equalize everything. So it may be the case that she has this definition in mind.

You have no idea how many people we have discussed this with that will argue to the end we are a Democracy period. They cannot distinguish the differences you list, and I agree. But we are a republic.

Oh, 57 chevy "BelAire" my learned friend. The Impala was not a thing in 57.....

 

[jamil]

You have no idea how many people we have discussed this with that will argue to the end we are a Democracy period. They cannot distinguish the differences you list, and I agree. But we are a republic.

Oh, 57 chevy "BelAire" my learned friend. The Impala was not a thing in 57.....

My brother had a 57 Impala. It was a thing to him.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Tombs]

No, not in name only. You can have a republic run by oligarchs and it's still a republic. It's just not a democratically elected republic. Now, if you say a constitutional republic in name only, I'll agree with that because we don't actually act like the constitution is the basis for rule of law.

When we lose the ability to directly vote for senators, and the constitution is actually enforced, we'll be a republic again.

As it stands now, it's hard to see how this is a republic.

 

[churchmouse]

My brother had a 57 Impala. It was a thing to him.

My brother had a 57 Impala. It was a thing to him.

No sir. It was not. 1958 was the intro year for the Impala.
The BelAire was top of The food chain in 1957. I am a dyed in the wool Tri-5 Chevy fan.
But enough thread jacking. A bit of a break from the madness.

 

[churchmouse]

When we lose the ability to directly vote for senators, and the constitution is actually enforced, we'll be a republic again.

As it stands now, it's hard to see how this is a republic.

Hard to argue.

 

[rob63]

When we lose the ability to directly vote for senators, and the constitution is actually enforced, we'll be a republic again.

As it stands now, it's hard to see how this is a republic.

You can't see it because that word doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means. Electing senators is a problem with being a republic, seriously?

I have reached the point that I don't really care to continue to argue these things, but I will say that it seems to be a fetish with conservatives to use the word Republic to mean something other than what the definition of the word actually is. I don't get it; I wish our side could learn to use a freaking dictionary.

I whole-heartedly agree that our government only vaguely resembles the government described in the constitution. That, however, doesn't mean it isn't a republic.

I get the impression that for too many people the fact that the government described in the constitution is described as a republic, they then have the idea that the government described in the constitution is therefore the definition of a republic. That is simply not so.

The establishment of a republic was a big deal when our nation was founded in an era full of kings, czars, kaiser's, etc. It's not a shock that they used that word, in that era, to describe our nation. It was a big deal! However, it doesn't mean that our nation, as founded, was the definition of a republic.

 

[jamil]

When we lose the ability to directly vote for senators, and the constitution is actually enforced, we'll be a constitutional republic again.

As it stands now, it's hard to see how this is a constitutional republic.

I fixed this so that I could agree with you.

There is no definition of a republic that I could find that says that states must appoint their senators for it to be a republic. The US can be a republic either way. Also, a republic doesn't require a constitution. So the US could be a republic without even a constitution.

But, for it to be a "constitutional republic" in a practical sense, it kinda needs to behave like constitution is the basis for its rule of law, instead of pretending like it is.

 

[jamil]

No sir. It was not. 1958 was the intro year for the Impala.
The BelAire was top of The food chain in 1957. I am a dyed in the wool Tri-5 Chevy fan.
But enough thread jacking. A bit of a break from the madness.

I could have sworn that his Impala was '57. He also had a '57 Cadilac Eldorado that he bought later. I guess I always thought they were the same year. Looking at google images the Impala had to be a '58. '59 was way different.

 

[jamil]

You can't see it because that word doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means. Electing senators is a problem with being a republic, seriously?

I have reached the point that I don't really care to continue to argue these things, but I will say that it seems to be a fetish with conservatives to use the word Republic to mean something other than what the definition of the word actually is. I don't get it; I wish our side could learn to use a freaking dictionary.

I whole-heartedly agree that our government only vaguely resembles the government described in the constitution. That, however, doesn't mean it isn't a republic.

I get the impression that for too many people the fact that the government described in the constitution is described as a republic, they then have the idea that the government described in the constitution is therefore the definition of a republic. That is simply not so.

The establishment of a republic was a big deal when our nation was founded in an era full of kings, czars, kaiser's, etc. It's not a shock that they used that word, in that era, to describe our nation. It was a big deal! However, it doesn't mean that our nation, as founded, was the definition of a republic.

I'm right there with you on most of that. I think conservatives get it from historical accounts of the debates about which form of government the colonies would adopt. That they rejected a direct democracy does not mean that what they settled on isn't still a form of democracy. We elect our representatives democratically. It's fair then to refer to us as a democracy and a republic.

But, our nation, as founded does fit the definition of a republic. The definition of republic is vague. It doesn't have to have representatives chosen through a democratic process. The People's Republic of China is technically a Republic because the power is derived from common people, in other words, not a monarch who privately owns the crown.

Canada, for example, is not a republic. It's a constitutional monarchy that acts in the name of the crown, but it's government is also a parliamentary democracy of the people. Which is weird. Kinda acts like a republic in that parliament is a government of the people, but officially a monarchy.

 

[rob63]

I'm right there with you on most of that. I think conservatives get it from historical accounts of the debates about which form of government the colonies would adopt. That they rejected a direct democracy does not mean that what they settled on isn't still a form of democracy. We elect our representatives democratically. It's fair then to refer to us as a democracy and a republic.

But, our nation, as founded does fit the definition of a republic. The definition of republic is vague. It doesn't have to have representatives chosen through a democratic process. The People's Republic of China is technically a Republic because the power is derived from common people, in other words, not a monarch who privately owns the crown.

Canada, for example, is not a republic. It's a constitutional monarchy that acts in the name of the crown, but it's government is also a parliamentary democracy of the people. Which is weird. Kinda acts like a republic in that parliament is a government of the people, but officially a monarchy.

I have often debated in my own head whether Great Britain counts as a republic or not, it is an oddball hybrid and I suspect that they derive joy in that conundrum.

 

[jamil]

I have often debated in my own head whether Great Britain counts as a republic or not, it is an oddball hybrid and I suspect that they derive joy in that conundrum.

No. GB is a monarchy, not a republic. My understanding is this: they have a parliamentary system where MP's are elected so in that regard, effectively it behaves like a republic. But, the power of the parliament comes from the monarchy, not the people. The head of state is the monarch, even though the crown doesn't really have executive power. So that makes it not a republic.

In contrast, the power granted to the US congress to make laws, and the POTUS as the head of the executive branch, derives from the people through the constitution. It's my understanding that the "through the people" and not through privately held authority, like a monarchy, that makes it a republic.

So if the people appointed a dictator as the head of state, that power would come from the people, and so that would make that a republic. It's just that dictators typically seize power and then declare themselves "of the people".

 

[chipbennett]

Although it is correct to call it a democracy, it is not as accurate as calling it a constitutional republic. Calling it a democracy is accurate in a similar way to calling a '57 Chevy Impala a car. It IS a car. The US IS a democracy. It's just more accurate to call it a constitutional republic.

It's also a bit naive at best, disingenuous at worst. When people claim that the US is a "democracy", they also tend to say things like, "one man, one vote" while decrying the Electoral College and the makeup of the Senate. Thus it isn't merely "57 Chevy Impala" vs "car"; it's "57 Chevy Impala" vs "70 Volkswagen Van". Yes, they're both cars; but they're different types of cars, intended for different purposes.

 

[chipbennett]

You can't see it because that word doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means. Electing senators is a problem with being a republic, seriously?

Yes. Part of the American Republic is the construct of a federal union of several, sovereign States. The Federal government is intended to deal with the several States, represented by the several States.

In an ideal world, nothing that happens at the Federal level should have any real impact on individuals in the several States. It shouldn't even matter, to the individual, who the sitting president is. Any issues of import to the individual should be addressed by the several States. That is why the Senate was designed such that it ensured equal representation of each state, and each State's two senators were appointed by the State's legislature.

Making Senators directly accountable to the individuals in each State, instead of to the State itself (through its legislature) directs the focus of the Senator away from matters of the State and toward matters of the individuals within the State - but that concern was intended to be addressed by the House of Representatives. So, we now have a Federal legislature that is wholly beholden to the individual, and not to the State.

 

[jamil]

It's also a bit naive at best, disingenuous at worst. When people claim that the US is a "democracy", they also tend to say things like, "one man, one vote" while decrying the Electoral College and the makeup of the Senate. Thus it isn't merely "57 Chevy Impala" vs "car"; it's "57 Chevy Impala" vs "70 Volkswagen Van". Yes, they're both cars; but they're different types of cars, intended for different purposes.

One man, one vote, isn't inaccurate either, at least in principle. And the Electoral college isn't contrary to that one vote. In the US, states matter. The states' electors elect the president, but in each state the people who are eligible to vote, get their vote. The people and the states choose the president. But that's only one branch of government. The people from each state and each district within a state, get to elect their senators and house representatives. And we could argue about whether the senate should be elected or appointed by the state. But everyone who holds a public elected office is chosen by the people either directly or indirectly.

So it doesn't bother me at all when people call it a democracy. It does bother me when people say that conservatives are destroying their democracy. That makes me think that what they really mean constitutes the definition communist meaning of democracy.

As it pertains to Dobbs, the SCOTUS restored that to the realm of actual democracy, where the people now get to elect people through a democratic process, who will make the abortion policy what they want it to be in their own state. Now if conservatives pursue a national ban on abortion through the federal government, which I think would be unconstitutional, I'd have to start doubting that conservatives were ever serious about abortion being an issue for states to decide.

 

[chipbennett]

One man, one vote, isn't inaccurate either, at least in principle. And the Electoral college isn't contrary to that one vote. In the US, states matter. The states' electors elect the president, but in each state the people who are eligible to vote, get their vote. The people and the states choose the president. But that's only one branch of government. The people from each state and each district within a state, get to elect their senators and house representatives. And we could argue about whether the senate should be elected or appointed by the state. But everyone who holds a public elected office is chosen by the people either directly or indirectly.

This is nuance that you and I neither misunderstand nor intentionally conflate. The election for President isn't a popular election, by design. It is NOT "one man, one vote". Senate makeup is also not "one man, one vote", by design. It is, "one State, two votes."

So, yes: I would say that, "one man, one vote" is inaccurate - and that inaccuracy is a feature, not a bug.

 

[jamil]

Yes.

No. There is no definition of "republic" that requires states to appoint senators. The US is a republic because it derives its power from the public rather than private interests. France is a republic. Why are its senators not appointed?

Part of the American Republic is the construct of a federal union of several, sovereign States. The Federal government is intended to deal with the several States, represented by the several States.

In an ideal world, nothing that happens at the Federal level should have any real impact on individuals in the several States. It shouldn't even matter, to the individual, who the sitting president is. Any issues of import to the individual should be addressed by the several States. That is why the Senate was designed such that it ensured equal representation of each state, and each State's two senators were appointed by the State's legislature.

Making Senators directly accountable to the individuals in each State, instead of to the State itself (through its legislature) directs the focus of the Senator away from matters of the State and toward matters of the individuals within the State - but that concern was intended to be addressed by the House of Representatives. So, we now have a Federal legislature that is wholly beholden to the individual, and not to the State.

You can make the case that senators, as the founders envisioned them, should be appointed by the states to represent the state's interests. That having senators elected by the constituents of the state weakens the sovereignty of the individual states. I agree with that point. But that has no impact on whether the US fits the definition of a republic, which was the claim.