The Constitution of the United States. Can section 4 article 4 be simplified?

a reply to: CopeLongCut

I see you skipped Blacks which states:

What is REPUBLIC?
A commonwealth; a form of government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the general body of citizens...

Guess you didn't like the "directly" part of that definition and looked for one that left it out.

In the end, Republic just means a government where the people are involved.

ETA: You say you got that quote from Blacks but I got this one from there as well: Republic

Fair enough. Let me go back. brb a reply to: daskakik

“A republic is a government which (a) derives all of its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people and (b) is administered by persons holding their office during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.” Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory 10 (1956). REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT republican government.See GOVERNMENT.

Also; RULE OF LAW rule of law. 1. A substantive legal principle .2. The supremacy of regular as opposed to arbitrary power . — Also termed supremacy of law. 3. The doctrine that every person is subject to the ordinary law within the jurisdiction .4. The doctrine that general constitutional principles are the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of private individuals in the courts .5. Loosely, a legal ruling; a ruling on a point of law . [Cases: Courts 87. C.J.S. Courts §§ 135–136.] a reply to: daskakik

a reply to: CopeLongCut

First response? It makes you feel safe until they mention federal law.

a reply to: CopeLongCut
I'm thinking a book from 1956 written by someone, Robert A. Dahl who also said the following , might be a little biased:

In How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (2001) Dahl argued that the US Constitution is much less democratic than it ought to be, given that its authors were operating from a position of "profound ignorance" about the future. However, he adds that there is little or nothing that can be done about this "short of some constitutional breakdown, which I neither foresee nor, certainly, wish for."

I mean it works but even he is using that "definition" to attack it.

Like I said, the literal translation from latin "res publica" - WIKI is a government that is a "public matter".

By introducing "Rule of law" I'm guessing you want to bring up the "Constitutional" part of "Constitutional Republic". That is fine but that also isn't mutually exclusive with democracy. Any democratically passed initiative/referendum can still be forced to comply to a supreme law and stricken down if it doesn't.

I honestly think that the idea that democracy is "mob rule", while it can be, is a bit hyperbolic.

It is funny because it is this lack of faith in their neighbors that drives people to embrace a system where they elect someone to represent them, only to complain about their representatives with those very same neighbors.

a reply to: daskakik

You and "Wiki", are confusing the two words. Democracy, is a majority rule.
A Republic is a rule of "law". Regardless of the "majority" or kind of government. They are, and always have been, exclusive.

Communists China is a "Republic". And China can honestly say that. Because it is ruled by a "law". A set of STANDARDS! Regardless of how wrong they are.
Try "Democracy" in China and see how far that'll get you. It shouldn't get you far. I would hope not.

All a republic is, is a form of government obligated to a set of laws. It is that simple.

The U.S.A. was/is a unique "Republic" in the fact that our "laws" protect the individual from the "state" and the "majority" (democracy). Not the state and majority, from the individual. At least that's how it was written to be.

"The States" do not allow for "direct democracy". That is one of the powers the States relinquished to the Federal Government. It is to insure each State a "Republican form of government".

Their (State) constitutions, allow for proposals, initiatives and referendums... That doesn't mean they meet "Constitutional Law'. Or even the idea of "democracy".

The citizens of the sovereign state of Oregon have rejected men marrying men and women marrying eachother, by a large majority "Democratically"... But that is not the current law.

Stop BSing people.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: CopeLongCut

I honestly think that the idea that democracy is "mob rule", while it can be, is a bit hyperbolic.

I am not sure about you. But it seems pretty evident the founding fathers purposely left out hyperbole sentences. Especially with their intent of a Republic.

edit on 14-9-2020 by CopeLongCut because: I am not sure about you. But it seems pretty evident the founding fathers purposely left out hyperbole sentences. Especially with their intent of a Republic. Didnt mean to quote myself along with yours.

a reply to: murphy22
No, we are saying that one, "democracy", is part of the broader term, "republic".

You are the one trying to reshape the definitions to include things that the words didn't initially represent.

Proposals, initiatives and referendums are direct democracy and anything passed by them can still be stricken down if they are deemed to be unconstitutional. Kinda takes the boogeyman effect out of it, doesn't it?

The brorder term is democracy. The more elegant. Is the term republic.a reply to: daskakik

a reply to: daskakik

Show me one time. Just once. Where the word "Democracy" is ever mentioned in any U.S.A. founding document?

I'll wait.

There's a reason it ain't there.

a reply to: CopeLongCut
I'm not talking about them and what they placed in the Constitution.

I'm talking about the popular ideas like "Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner". When in fact it would be millions of people deciding if pot should be legal or if someone could have more than 10 rounds in their rifle, instead of letting a few people, who supposedly represent you, making that call.

a reply to: CopeLongCut
No, republic just means a government where the people are involved.

That could be directly or indirectly.

It doesn't specify if a constitution is in place or if there are term limits placed on the elected officials. It is a broad term.

a reply to: murphy22
When did I say democracy appeared in those docs?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CopeLongCut
A was curious about responses on section 4 article 4. Thank you for your response though.. reply to: chr0naut

I think that government should not be about legal control, but about individual rights and freedoms. It is where a Constitution comes in, as a baseline to protect those rights and freedoms.

Clearly you cannot allow the anarchy of 'every man for themselves' and 'everyone does what they want', but you need to have something that is not repressive, either. This is where a Constitutional document shines.

In 4, 4. The presumption that a Republican form of government is optimal is not historically the case. The Nazi government fell out of the Weimar Republic. Ancient Rome was a republic and there are a number of 'republics' around the world that are sub par and treat their peoples inhumanely and/or have goverened poorly.

Clearly 4, 4, says that it is to protect them against domestic violence by the Executive but there have been actions of the Executive branch and even the President that have resulted in direct violence against citizens (such as the Bonus War, Waco raid and similar).

It is clear that 4, 4 is written very poorly for a piece of 'legalese' and is very fuzzy in meaning. It has run-on sentences with comma's and semicolons all over the place. You have to read and re-read it to try and understand what it is on about.

But I am a foreigner, so you may, if you wish, ignore anything I say.

What do you think of this guy?
youtu.be...

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: CopeLongCut
No, republic just means a government where the people are involved.

That could be directly or indirectly.

It doesn't specify if a constitution is in place or if there are term limits placed on the elected officials. It is a broad term.

You are honestly confusing the heck out of me. Are you arguing just for the sake of it. Or do you have a point you are trying to make.

Your new constitution essentially destroys the United States as it currently exists.

Under this new constitution if i were elected President i could abolish the congress and supreme court, outlaw elections and suspend all civil rights. All of that would be well within my right since the powers of the office are not defined and therefore limitless if the will is there. All i am obligated to do is maintain a republican form of government (melt down the crown, boys, coronation is cancelled), the states, federal system & armed forces. I could also amend the constitution at my leisure since the process for that is also undefined and rid myself of even those obligations.

Methinks the current US constitution is how it is for a reason.

a reply to: daskakik

You are wrong.

A Republic is a set of standards/laws the people and the government, (as a nation) are supposed to live by. That is a REPUBLIC.

Karl Marx would've loved you!

a reply to: CopeLongCut
Maybe I'm wrong but, I took your OP to be about the phrase "republican form of government" meaning something specific. That isn't necessarily the case.

I'm sure the FF of the US put a lot of thought into things but all the things they included; the constitution as supreme law, the BOR and the process to make amendments, the division of powers to constrain the power of government, are not what makes the the US a republic.

a reply to: murphy22
Not according to the original definition of "republic".

Like I said, it is a very broad term and all the specifics, that some argue are part of it, were added afterwards for the sake of their arguments.

a reply to: murphy22

You simply suggest it.

Democracy, in no way, can be used with the word Republic. Especially in The U.S.A.

The laws of the U.S. Republic are in place specifically to protect us from the majority of idiots.