AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

https://dcdirtylaundry.com/why-socialists-want-us-to-believe-were-a-democracy-not-the-republic-we-are/

Why Socialists Want Us To Believe We’re A Democracy & Not The Republic We Are
August 18, 2019

One would think that politicians who are in charge of making laws in this country would at least know what kind of government they are representing. Yet, none of them seem to be able to admit it. On a daily basis, we hear speeches and press conferences given by members of the House, Senate, the Executive branch, even down to the state and local level, referring to the United States government as a democracy, when, in fact, we are not.

Anyone who has graduated high school in the US has had at least a basic education in American history, the Constitution, and the foundation of the law of their country. This is more so for those who are over the age of 50 years old when US history was a requirement in all schools before history teachers began to teach politics, world affairs, economics, etc. in place of it. Since most politicians in Washington are older, they were extensively taught the history of their country and are aware of the fact that the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

There is no question that today, Socialists within the US government are working hard to t***sform the constitutionalUSA into a Socialist state and it is much easier to accomplish this under a guise of democracy rather than a republic.

One of the big differences between the two forms of government is a republic is governed by a representative form of government ruled by a Constitution. A democracy is a form of government completely ruled by the will of the majority of the people of a given country.

In a republic, which the US is, we have the Constitution which limits the power the government has in imposing laws which violate individual rights, regardless of whether it is the desire by the majority of the people. In a democracy, the majority would rule in all cases.

This brings us back to the nucleus of why Socialists in office, under the guise of both Democrat and Republican, refer to the US as a democracy and not what we really are, a republic. Under a democracy, the Socialists would have a green light to accomplish wh**ever they want when it comes to imposing law rather than having to adhere to the constitution and protect the rights of the minority.

This explains the Socialists’ desire to eliminate the E*******l College. Under a democracy, every p**********l e******n would be determined by the majority of actual v**es and the EC would not exist. This would virtually assure a Socialist win in every e******n since the states of California and New York would put their preferred candidate over the top in actual v**es, over the desires of v**ers in the geographical majority of the rest of the country every time.

The entire US would be vulnerable to total gun bans, mandatory v******tions, extreme taxation under the guise of c*****e c****e and free but very strict programs such as healthcare and college tuition, and the eventual removal of the Constitution altogether.

Because of the huge population in just two states, the rest of the country would be governed by the supposed will of the people v****g in these states under a democracy.

This also brings up the desire by all Democrat states who want to bring in as many i*****l a***ns as possible and give them drivers licenses which, in most cases, comes with them being registered to v**e. In California, one is automatically registered to v**e when they get a drivers license under the state’s Motor V**er law. Thus, under a democracy, millions of v**es cast by those here illegally would determine the winner in every p**********l e******n.
As it is, millions of v**es are cast by i******s in every e******n in the US in blue states, but because we are a republic, they do not determine who wins the presidency.

If you like taxation without representation, being ruled over rather than being represented, no individual rights, and the abolishment of the constitution altogether, then you prefer living in a democracy and will take the Socialist’s word that this is what we are. However, if protecting individual rights, being actually represented by your government, having the constitution as the rule of law and protecting individual rights is your idea of what the USA is, then you can see that we are indeed a republic.
It’s time for a detailed history lesson for many who believe the US is a democracy and learn that we are a republic and have been since the country was founded.

Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media
h/t The Washington Standard
Tony is an established writer with articles in over 20 publications of differing topics, He was Political Commentary Columnist for the Cimarron News Press in Cimarron, New Mexico from 2001 to 2003. Tony was also a regular writer for several small coastal newspapers in Southern Oregon during the early 1990’s. BOOKS: Aura Visions: The Origin Prophecy,Enviroclowns: The C*****e C****e Circus,Strange Sounds: A Research Report

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

A fine article, yet there's an alternative viewpoint...

The Volokh Conspiracy Opinion; Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

By Eugene Volokh

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to v**e for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority v**e. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of B****stone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s B****stone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular v**e — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.

Now one can certainly argue that some aspects of U.S. government should become less direct, and filtered through more layers of representation. One can argue, for instance, that the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and that U.S. senators should no longer be elected directly by the people, but should return to being elected by state legislators who are elected by the people. Or one can argue for repealing state- and local-level initiative and referendum schemes. Or one can argue for making the E*******l College into a deliberative body, in which the e*****rs are supposed to discuss the candidates and make various political deals, rather than being elected solely to v**e for particular candidates. And of course one can equally argue for making some aspects of U.S. government more direct, for instance by shifting to truly direct e******n of the president, or by institute a federal-level initiative and referendum.

But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.” “Democracy” and “republic” aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as “a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people”). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, “democracy” has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eugene Volokh is a Ukrainian-American legal scholar known for his scholarship in American constitutional law and libertarianism, as well as his prominent legal blog "The Volokh Conspiracy". He is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, and is an academic affiliate at the law firm Mayer Brown. His blog, The Volokh Conspiracy was co-founded in 2002 and covers legal and political issues from an ideological orientation it describes as "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these."

TrueAmerican

How I wish I could write so articulately !!!!!!

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

From the original thread post, "Because of the huge population in just two states, the rest of the country would be governed by the supposed will of the people v****g in these states under a democracy."

2017's top ten states, by population, of the U.S.A.: According to the 2016 e******n results, as one can see, the Dems certainly did not dominate the urban states. One could claim the author's 'crying wolf.'

1. California 39,536,653...Democrats
2. Texas 28,304,596...GOP
3. Florida 20,984,400...GOP
4. New York 19,849,399...Democrats
5. Pennsylvania 12,805,537...GOP
6. Illinois 12,802,023...Democrats
7. Ohio 11,658,609...GOP
8. Georgia 10,429,379...GOP
9. North Carolina 10,273,419...GOP
10. Michigan 9,936,211...GOP

DaWg44

Auntie E, I have had this discussion over & over w/ Liberals & have basically gotten the same answer, “That’s not fair.” Due to at least 50 years of educational decline, they don’t have any idea of what “The Great American Experiment” meant in the governance of nations. Trying to explain anything to them based on historical fact makes their eyes glaze over.

bahmer

Amen and Amen thanks for that AuntiE that was a great article.