Emeraldlady
New member
That actually explains to me why JonNC’s position has seemed to be based on some ambiguous foundation that us ordinary democratic countries are perhaps not privy to. His definitions seem to be hiding something?
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
That’s certainly the modern definition. The Classical definition was more like a council of all citizens, and it was that form of democracy that Plato rejected. Mind you, even by his time, the Athenian democracy had evolved mightily from simply a congregation of all citizens; it had executive functions; a court system that had itself almost evolved into an upper chamber. As Athens grew in power and population, a simplistic model of a citizens’ assembly (what I’d call primitive democracy), where legislation was essentially decided by general plebiscite, was no longer sufficient.
If you think at why Edward I called the Model Parliament, you get a sense of the evolution of the Western European legislative model. Edward I convened that Parliament for the specific aims of raising money, and the representatives, nobility, Church and commoners, in their turn were looking for a venue to air grievances. That’s the embryonic legislative assembly that evolved into the Westminster Parliament and the US Congress. At its core was the idea that the Executive needed wide approval to raise money, and that the people, through their representatives, had the right to seek remedy for grievances in a respectful, orderly and yet relatively free manner. The idea of this body as a legislature came later, as the concept of using Parliament as a body wherein the King could gain wide political approval for policies became cemented.
If you think at why Edward I called the Model Parliament, you get a sense of the evolution of the Western European legislative model. Edward I convened that Parliament for the specific aims of raising money, and the representatives, nobility, Church and commoners, in their turn were looking for a venue to air grievances. That’s the embryonic legislative assembly that evolved into the Westminster Parliament and the US Congress. At its core was the idea that the Executive needed wide approval to raise money, and that the people, through their representatives, had the right to seek remedy for grievances in a respectful, orderly and yet relatively free manner. The idea of this body as a legislature came later, as the concept of using Parliament as a body wherein the King could gain wide political approval for policies became cemented.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I only meant to point out that when people say, “the US is a democracy”, they are actually on firm ground.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Juvenal said it first, " Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?" Who will guard the guardians?
If we are not competent to rule ourselves, then who is competent? He will have to be one of us, after all – we’re the only species on the planet that can comprehend the idea of government.
“The constitution is a legal document. And it says what it says. And it doesn’t say it doesn’t say.”
- Scalia.
The framers knew the word and its meaning and didn’t use it. AFAIK, the term isn’t in any state constitution, either.
I don’t know. Many of our individual rights remain intact.
I don’t think so. The constitutional limits on government, though under attack, are still there. There still can’t be a vote to take away enumerated rights, for example.
Maybe, but the ability of the majority to rescind them is, too. And that’s what a constitutional representative republic protects us from, that democracy.
The United States is not a democracy — and it wasn’t meant to be one
Most of the institutions today’s activists complain about were designed to thwart the pernicious effects of too much democracy.
www.google.com
Emeraldlady
New member
John Adams was equally concerned about a republic should be restrained from inevitable excesses.
Of republics there is an inexhaustible variety, because the possible combinations of the powers of society are capable of innumerable variations.
As good government is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made? In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good. But by what rules shall you choose your representatives? Agree upon the number and qualifications of persons who shall have the benefit of choosing, or annex this privilege to the inhabitants of a certain extent of ground.
The principle difficulty lies, and the greatest care should be employed in constituting this representative assembly. It should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason and act like them. That it may be the interest of this assembly to do strict justice at all times, it should be an equal representation, or, in other words, equal interests among the people should have equal interests in it. Great care should be taken to effect this, and to prevent unfair, partial, and corrupt elections. Such regulations, however, may be better made in times of greater tranquility than the present; and they will spring up themselves naturally, when all the powers of government come to be in the hands of the people’s friends.
That doesn’t sound like the oligarchical type republic which views that masses of incapable of wisdom, that is being promoted these days.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Did this paper come from the same people who said Trump would destroy the USA and send it into anarchy within six months?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Probably not. Why do you ask?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Just wondering. Sky-is-falling stuff always just makes me think the author is looking for attention.
Sounds like a description of progressives.
From the article in the OP.
Question: in which of these countries that have “right-wing populists” leaders were they, a) not elected and/or, b) have they ended democratic processes?
These kinds of things happen in left-wing socialist regimes.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
In a republic, we will always have a ruling elite. In a republic, the people vote for the people who will rule them. The trick is to pick the right elites. 
The pessimism about our experiment in the USA is warranted. Not because the elites rule but because they do not. They unconstitutionally delegate to an unelected permanent bureaucracy the task of governance. The elites would rather engage in maintaining their positions of power or increasing their own wealth rather than legislating.
The framers tasked Congress to legislate in Article 1 Section 1, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”. We will have to rely on the judiciary to order the Congress to cease and desist from delegating their most important duty to those unaccountable to the electorate.
The pessimism about our experiment in the USA is warranted. Not because the elites rule but because they do not. They unconstitutionally delegate to an unelected permanent bureaucracy the task of governance. The elites would rather engage in maintaining their positions of power or increasing their own wealth rather than legislating.
The framers tasked Congress to legislate in Article 1 Section 1, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”. We will have to rely on the judiciary to order the Congress to cease and desist from delegating their most important duty to those unaccountable to the electorate.
Emeraldlady
New member
Again, that sounds more like the left.
Oh, utter nonsense. If anything, Trump has worked to reduce central government power and control.
We heard this inane kind of stuff against Obama, against W Bush, Clinton and Reagan.
But if you’re really worried about it, vigorous support of the second amendment seems appropriate.
And Marcos isn’t in power.
It is the way Castro and Chavez came to
power. The main player in these is socialism.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Constitutional Republic with Democratic principles.
J
Johnrock
Guest
Trump is the clearest enemy of Democracy we have had since Joe McCarthy.
I’m an enemy of democracy, just like the founders were.
The enemies of liberty, hot, are those who favor strong central government.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
But the founders werent. Your badly overstating your argument.
No, I’m not. The United States constitution guarantees to the states s republican form of government. Democratic principles are, of course, part of this republic, but it is not a democracy by governance.
And that’s a good thing.
- Status