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...

[Patricia M. McBride]

They repeat it over and over and over, because they are trying to get those who do not know and are foolish enough to think these folks know what they are talking about.  If you repeat something often enough, many people will believe you are correct (and probably fight anyone who disagrees).  Obama uses it all the time knowing full well, it is not correct.