Republic vs. Democracy - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LaRondo · #1 01-25-2010, 02:22 AM

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

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 a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

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.

SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

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 a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.

COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

MS Fowler · #2 01-25-2010, 06:42 AM

Great discussion.
Too bad its a distinction that is lost on ( my estimate) 2/3 to 3/4 of the American public.

LUVMBDiesels · #3 01-25-2010, 07:16 AM

I agree with you 100%

Look at some of the 'democracies' we have had in the past 100 years - the USSR, Fascist Italy, NAZI Germany, etc. Look at the democracy that followed the French Revolution. Heck, look at the UK and the Canadians. They are both ruled by a simple majority system that leaves many people disenfranchised. For example ask any person from Northern England what they think about being ruled by the MPs from London and Middlesex or a Canadian from Vancouver how he feels about being run by MPs from Ontario to get my drift. Take a look at how Chavez is able to subvert his democracy to suit his needs. The founding fathers were very careful to frame our government so as to not allow a majority to overwhelm the minority.
In this respect the USA is pretty unique in the world.

Txjake · #4 01-25-2010, 08:59 AM

wonderfully put.........

Graplr · #5 01-25-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

It is already made aware to every person that takes high school civics (a required class to graduate in most places). I remember my teacher making the distinction for me while I was in high school.

LUVMBDiesels · #6 01-25-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graplr

It is already made aware to every person that takes high school civics (a required class to graduate in most places). I remember my teacher making the distinction for me while I was in high school.

That is not the case any longer. Now there is no civics class in most schools...

JollyRoger · #7 01-25-2010, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

I agree with you 100%

Look at some of the 'democracies' we have had in the past 100 years - the USSR, Fascist Italy, NAZI Germany, etc. Look at the democracy that followed the French Revolution. Heck, look at the UK and the Canadians. They are both ruled by a simple majority system that leaves many people disenfranchised. For example ask any person from Northern England what they think about being ruled by the MPs from London and Middlesex or a Canadian from Vancouver how he feels about being run by MPs from Ontario to get my drift. Take a look at how Chavez is able to subvert his democracy to suit his needs. The founding fathers were very careful to frame our government so as to not allow a majority to overwhelm the minority.
In this respect the USA is pretty unique in the world.

I'm having a real hard time with your characterizations of the USSR and Nazi Germany as 'democracies'.

Graplr · #8 01-25-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

That is not the case any longer. Now there is no civics class in most schools...

You can call the class what ever you like but defining a democracy and a republic is still part of every high school education. Every high school is required by law to teach standards. Attached is one of them.

Here is an excerpt from the Minnesota Department of Education's Social Studies GRADUATION STANDARDS. By law, every high school in MN has to follow these standards and teach them.

3. Students will define....democracy, republic, and representative democracy.

So, every student that graduates from high school has to define what a republic and democracy are. Obviously not everyone remembers it because some don't care as much about it as you do. Just like one might not remember too much what their French teacher taught them.

Txjake · #9 01-25-2010, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graplr

You can call the class what ever you like but defining a democracy and a republic is still part of every high school education. Every high school is required by law to teach standards. Attached is one of them.

Here is an excerpt from the Minnesota Department of Education's Social Studies GRADUATION STANDARDS. By law, every high school in MN has to follow these standards and teach them.

3. Students will define....democracy, republic, and representative democracy.

So, every student that graduates from high school has to define what a republic and democracy are. Obviously not everyone remembers it because some don't care as much about it as you do. Just like one might not remember too much what their French teacher taught them.

that's too bad, because that is certainly more important than trying to order a meal in French...which is the most most people will do with French...

LUVMBDiesels · #10 01-25-2010, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I'm having a real hard time with your characterizations of the USSR and Nazi Germany as 'democracies'.

Sure they were... the USSR had many elections - they even had multiple parties - the Communist Party, the Workers and Peasants party, etc.

The NAZIs were even voted into office more than once in the early 1930's.

What I am trying to say is that without the checks and balances of our Constitution, things can get out of hand real fast...

JollyRoger · #11 01-25-2010, 11:50 AM

The Nazis were elected as part of a Representative Republic, it was called the Weimer Republic, not the Weimer Democracy, was it not, and weren't Nazis elected to the Reichstag to make laws, which is the heart of Republicanism? And didn't these Representatives then pass the Enabling Act ? Do you even know what the Enabling Act is? Seems like your reasoning actually leads one to see that Republicanism led to Hitler, does it not?

And perhaps you can explain to us all exactly what a "soviet" is? Your entire line of reasoning is ridiculous, all of these governmental systems were electing people to representative bodies. Pure democracy is where people vote directly on issues, not on representatives, get your facts straight before you post such drivel, it's pretty obvious you don't even understand what a pure democracy is.

Actual "democratic" governments have been few and far between. Ancient Greece comes to mind. I can really think of no other. They lasted for a few centuries and their achievements are legend, not exactly a failure.

davidmash · #12 01-25-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

Sure they were... the USSR had many elections - they even had multiple parties - the Communist Party, the Workers and Peasants party, etc.

The NAZIs were even voted into office more than once in the early 1930's.

What I am trying to say is that without the checks and balances of our Constitution, things can get out of hand real fast...

When the Nazis were voted into office, they were not in charge at the time. As I recall, once Hitler assumed power, there were no more elections under the new Nazi regime.

JollyRoger · #13 01-25-2010, 11:58 AM

The tenets of Nazism revolve around the "Führer Principle", Mein Kampf directly states that both Republicanism and Democracy are to be destroyed. The Nazi system revolves around a State subservient to a Party, as do all totalitarian systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerprinzip

The idea that democracy is a feature of Nazism is utterly laughable. From the Wiki:

Quote:

This principle became the law of the National Socialist German Worker's Party and the SS and was later transferred onto the whole German totalitarian society. Appointed mayors replaced elected local governments. The Nazis suppressed associations and unions with elected leaders, putting in their place mandatory associations with appointed leaders.

Some "democracy" you got there.

JollyRoger · #14 01-25-2010, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

Sure they were... the USSR had many elections - they even had multiple parties - the Communist Party, the Workers and Peasants party, etc.

The NAZIs were even voted into office more than once in the early 1930's.

What I am trying to say is that without the checks and balances of our Constitution, things can get out of hand real fast...

So your real problem seems to be with elections? How exactly does that work with Republicanism? Hmm, Republicanism with elections, that really works, yeah, right, according to you, Republicanism is the answer, but when bad representatives are voted in then it must be because of democracy. Strong reasoning powers, fer sure.

JollyRoger · #15 01-25-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

When the Nazis were voted into office, they were not in charge at the time. As I recall, once Hitler assumed power, there were no more elections under the new Nazi regime.

Yes, like a good little Republic, the people voted in Representatives. These representatives just happened to be Nazis. After the Reichstag fire, which was Germany's 9-11, these nice little representives, in their Republican way, voted to give all their power to the Fuhrer. So much for the Weimer Republic.