Democracy versus Constitutional Republic

[Patricia M. McBride]

As all of us know, we are not a democracy (even though we use a democratic system to elect our representatives), but yesterday during a city council meeting, the hairs on the back of my neck went up when Councilman Warren Jones called us a democracy a couple of times in the context of his argument in favor of bill 2012-296. At any rate, it never hurts to post a contrast to these 2 very distinct types of governments, and as we all know the founders did not form a democracy because they DO NOT LAST and basically are the WORST form of government there is (kind of like having a football game but with no rules period..........imagine). Our country is a constitutional republic, and we should all get very angry when any representative tries to ignor the constitution by calling us a democracy..............I expect them to know better given the positions they hold!

.............................................................

Democracy versus Constitutional Republic

Most of you may already know this but I wanted to post this to make a point of why it is so important for us to elect a head of state……………..that is a Constitutionalist first and foremost…………………..

One of my pet peeves is how the word  democracy has crept to the forefront when referring to the form of government this country is suppose to represent when the actual form of government of the United States is a Constitutional Republic.

A pure Democracy is nothing more than mob rule with no provisions for the rights of the individual. The Founding Fathers saw this as one of the worst forms of government and in their wisdom provided a framework to secure the rights of the individual, ie., a Constitution and a Bill of Rights with separation of powers subject to Judicial Review which is the Rule of Law we live under.

True that we do elect our head of state and representatives by a Democratic system, ie., majority popular vote. (Although with the Electoral College and the Florida debacle that’s even in question), but that aside, once our head of state and representatives are elected democratically they are bound by their oath of office to uphold, obey and defend the Constitution, so help them God thus a Constitutional Republic.

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is checked by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.  Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to hold in check the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers.

The above was taken from the Ron Paul web site, and I want to thank him for providing such a great explanation.

Blogger post:

In searching for this on the 'net:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Representative democracy: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep electing two wolves and a sheep who vote on what to have for dinner.

Constitutional republic: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep electing two wolves and a sheep who vote on what to have for dinner, but are restricted by a Constitution that says they cannot eat sheep. The Supreme Court then votes 5 wolves to 4 sheep that mutton does not count as sheep.

Liberty: Well-armed sheep contesting the above votes.

I found them, of all things, on a website that discourages voting.
http://www.insolitology.com/simplyanarchy/donotvote/pb/wp_b0...

[Maxine Jessica Roberts]

John - 

Ben Franklin - ""When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power [government], it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."" 

Thomas Jefferson - ""I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.""

James Madison - "Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance... [R]eligion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together..."
AND
""What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical [of or relating to a church] establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.""

Thomas MF Paine - ""And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and christians, ye many always fully and uninteruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.""

George Washington - "

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.
I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.""

Oh and besides that.
Treaty of Tripoli - ""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.""

[Patricia M. McBride]

John, here is but one thing I found on Washington but there is a wealth of information on clergy being brought in for prayers at the beginning of sessions in Washington and days of prayer.  Here is some of the first president's info on religion.  I have highlighted some sections I felt were relavent:

And Finally we must note that George Washington, surveyor, wealthy planter, fox hunting sportsman, officer of the Virginia Militia, General of the Continental Army during the War of Independence, President of the Constitutional Convention, and First President of the United States was without a trace of "Christianism". He was so completely indifferent to its pious irascibilities that he never appears to have made any comment on them. Indeed, he seemed, according to the evidence, to have had no instinct or feeling for religion, although he attended church twelve or fifteen times a year.

The name of Jesus Christ is not mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington's published letters. He refers to Providence in numerous letters, but he used the term as a synonym for Destiny or Fate. Bishop White, who knew him well for many years, wrote after Washington's death that he had never heard him express an opinion on any religious subject. He added that although Washington was "serious and attentive" in church, he never saw him kneel in prayer.

Nevertheless, he believed in the stabilizing power of religion. In his Farewell Address, which unquestionably represents his most mature opinions, the name of God does not appear, but he had a good word for religions, to wit: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

He considered religion a matter of policy. A few lines farther on in the same paragraph, he states, "Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

Washington had the inestimable faculty of being able to say nothing. He said nothing about religion -- nothing very definite -- and as a deist was willing to let people think whatever they pleased. As he never discussed religion at all, and went to church only occasionally, he was considered by most people to be a quietly religious man. It was somewhat of a shock, therefore, to the people of Philadelphia, when the reverend Dr. Abercrombie, Washington's pastor, criticised him from the pulpit. He told him that as President, he should not belong to a church unless he could set a good example to others. He reminded Washington that he never took communion, and in short, that his example was bad.

Washington listened to these reproaches in silence, and never went to that church again. His only comment was that he did not wish to annoy Dr. Abercrombie by his presence.

[Patricia M. McBride]

No Amanda, I do not nor did I say that!

[Maxine Jessica Roberts]

You know what else our founding father said about government. Religion had no business in it. lol.

[amanda choate]

Patricia, you really think that OWS is the majority?????

[amanda choate]

Kurt Gaubatz recalls Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

[amanda choate]

Okay chief I see what you mean, a democracy is like when you vote on the laws themselves, kind of like ballot initiatives or constitiutional ammendments that appear on the ballot, that would be democracy. Good thing we don't have that here. Or a democracy could be when people like city commisioners, dog catchers, mosquito control boards, mayors,county commisioners, tax collectors, property appraisers, clerk of courts, sheriffs, house members, governors, are directly elected by a majority. Good thing we don't have that.

A constitutional Republic provides no more security of freedom than a pure democracy, it is in the execution that matters. We have a mixture of a constitutional republic and pure democracy. It is flawed but better than most other forms of government. Did you know

[Patricia M. McBride]

Neat John.  Kind of says it all doesn't it???  Those wolves bear a lot of resemblance to the some of the OWS folks I have seen in videos (or maybe even union thugs).

[Patricia M. McBride]

Amanda, you are totally clueless. Read some of what the founders said about democracy and our form of government. Better still read what they just did in Iceland................the constitution protects us against tyrany unless you have an Obama who thinks the law does not apply to him. Our country provides us with democratic elections; it does not provide the majority with the right to infringe on or trample the rights of the minority.

[amanda choate]

Our Constitution provides us democracy. Not all Constitutions provide such. Tyrants can hide behind the "its the law not me" defense and do so all the time. That is why we hold dearly to the notion of our democracy, power entrusted in the people. Devaluing democracy devalues the people the laws serve. Laws were designed to serve the powerless and courts designed to even the playing field.