| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! SUBSCRIBE NOW !! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
Republic or a Democracy? USA
USA is a Republic by Allan Hampton Yes, anti-Americans have pushed democracy on us for many years. Article IV, Section 4; "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." Majority rules in a democracy. It like two wolves and a lamb voting what is for supper. Democracy and Republic --- Some definitions by Sophia Barkat Here's a link that defines all the various forms of democracies as we know them: http://www.afrd.org/glossary.htm According to the link, the US would be closer to a Republic. "The term republic today refers to a system of government in which the people rule, but do so through the popular election of representatives who in turn make the laws. " Now going back to Allan's post. Allan said: "The majority rules in a democracy, not in a Republic, America is a Republic and citizens rule nothing but themselves. The Constitution rules government in America the Republic, Article VI." Seems to me Allan's definition and the AFDR.org don't match. Allan suggests there is no majority rule in a Republic. In light of afrg.org definitions I agree that the US must be a Republic. While the Constitution is open to amendments it provides a basic backbone for governing, though it does leave much open to debate. For e.g. it does say what types of things the various offices of Govt. can do. For ex.: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html - Congress can legislate; - the Executive Branch/President -- okays or vetoes bills proposed by Congress; - the Judicial Office enforces the law. Now, I may be wrong but it seems to me that the Supreme Courts -- Judicial Branch -- do much legislating as well which reduces the kind of things Congress can legislate on. For e.g. the Courts decide whether abortion is legal. Congress doesn't. Why then do we call Congress the legislative body. Also, according to the afrg.org definition, since officials elected by popular vote alone can legislate, the ability of Courts to legislate makes the US neither a Republic nor a Democracy, but something in between. For here elected officials have votes on how Government may raise money and spend it and on Foreign Policy. But they don't have any power to legislate many things. Who draws the line? Does the Constitution give limited legislative powers to the elected officials? It would see, from above link that in a Republic popular vote rules. Is this not a majority vote? by Allan Hampton re: Sophia's post --- Democracy and Republic --- Some definitions I said it fairly accurate before. Article I, Section 1; "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." No question about it U.S. Courts cannot legally enact any law at all and neither can "Citizens" at the federal level. U.S. courts constitutionally have no apparatus to use to enforce a law against Citizens or government outside of the judges court room. In some States citizens can vote on certain laws, but not in all States. In America the Republic Citizens are free to do as they wish, up to the point of doing harm and even doing harm is acceptable, and encouraged, in defense of oneself, family, property and "Community" (Neighborhood as in Militia). Government is defined, in part (largely) in Article VI as those required by the Constitution to take the oath of office "before being seated in their public offices (Article II)." Citizens are free but government is not free, government must, to be legal, obey the Law as articulated in the Constitution (read Amendment X). Electoral Duty, Citizenship and Party Names by Sophia Barkat Here are some interesting stuff I found online regarding Democracy vs. Republic. All of the articles can be found at William R. Thorton's site: http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/ Here's one that puts down a Democracy: http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm "In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable." To avoid this "dictatorship" of the masses the Electoral College further ensures that the elected President is not necessarily by popular-vote. Here are some examples where the Electoral Vote and not the Popular Vote won: http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/electoralmath.htm "Some reversals have been more complicated. In 1824, Andrew Jackson beat his rival, John Quincy Adams, by more popular and then more electoral votes--99 versus 84--but still lost the election because he didn't win a majority of electoral votes (78 went to other candidates). When that happens, the House of Representatives picks the winner. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden lost to Rutherford B. Hayes by one electoral vote, though he received 50.9 percent of the popular vote to Hayes's 47.9 percent; an extraordinary commission awarded 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes. We've also had some famous close calls. In 1960, John F. Kennedy narrowly beat Richard Nixon in the popular voting, 49.7 percent to 49.5 percent, a smaller margin than Cleveland had over Harrison. But wait: Nixon won more states (Nixon 26, Kennedy and others 24). But no: Kennedy, who won bigger states, went on to win the electoral balloting, 303 to 219. This time we, the people, did not strike out. The popular-vote winner became president." Source: Will Hively, "Math Against Tyranny", Discover magazine, November, 1996) The example of Andrew Jackson vs John Quincy Adams makes one wonder if this kind of upset let to the political candidates forming fewer and fewer parties. Here's Hively showing how Madison came up with the idea for an electoral college: "James Madison, chief architect of our nation's electoral college, wanted to protect each citizen against the most insidious tyranny that arises in democracies: the massed power of fellow citizens banded together in a dominant bloc. As Madison explained in The Federalist Papers (Number X), "a well-constructed Union" must, above all else, "break and control the violence of faction," especially "the superior force of an . . . overbearing majority." In any democracy, a majority's power threatens minorities. It threatens their rights, their property, and sometimes their lives." Madison was assuming that those in the Electoral College were wiser than regular folks and could therefore pick the right person to run the nation, not whom the less wiser public voted into office. I can imagine this would make sense at the time, the electoral college was formed. With more people with higher education than ever, this argument may not hold, though it's a lot more "politically correct" than say having a voting system where citizens with minimum education levels are allowed to vote. But as is, why does the US Constitution make it seem that to vote is the duty of each citizen? Is it an attempt to keep civil disobedience to a minimum by making the citizen involved in some ceremonial process? For are not the "wiser representatives" already in the Electoral College supposedly better at selecting a President? I'm not very aware of US political history, but does this debate -- Democracy vs. Republic -- have anything to do with how the Democratic Party and the Republican Party got their names? If so, are the Democrats trying to change the voting system back to Popular-Vote, thereby empowering the citizen with the ability to pick the President? I know the 2000 Election did raise some talk about wanting to change the system to a Popular Vote system. It wouldn't make the US a Democracy, but it sure would give some real weight to voting. I know people don't vote in most elections and it's probably due to laziness and indifference. Do you think knowing that the US was a Republic and that the popular vote was not always useful would keep more people away from the ballots? In another article, William R Thorton suggests that the while most citizens don't know the simple facts about the US being a Republic it's something the US Army makes sure to distribute to its recruits, where it makes sure to undermines the "democratic way": http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvdem.htm by Allan Hampton re: Sophia's post --- Electoral Duty, Citizenship and Party Names Read what is said about "democracies" in the Federalist Papers. |
ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Archives Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations MoveOn.org MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org |
|