While today we marvel at the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, their own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures was considerably less enthusiastic.
Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: "…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views."
He thought it impossible to expect a "perfect production" from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.
Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin's logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it. Their over-riding concern was the tendency in nearly all parts of the young country toward disorder and disintegration. Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty--"democracy"--as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776. But they had not yet worked out fully the question that has plagued all nations aspiring to democratic government ever since: how to implement principles of popular majority rule while at the same time preserving stable governments that protect the rights and liberties of all citizens.

Few believed that a new federal constitution alone would be sufficient to create a unified nation out of a collection of independent republics spread out over a vast physical space, extraordinarily diverse in their economic interests, regional loyalties, and ethnic and religious attachments. And there would be new signs of disorder after 1787 that would remind Americans what an incomplete and unstable national structure they had created: settlers in western Pennsylvania rebelled in 1794 because of taxes on their locally distilled whiskey; in western North Carolina there were abortive attempts to create an independent republic of "Franklin" which would ally itself with Spain to insure its independence from the United States; there was continued conflict with Indians across the whole western frontier and increased fear of slave unrest, particularly when news of the slave-led revolution in Haiti reached American shores.

But as fragile as America's federal edifice was at the time of the founding, there was much in the culture and environment that contributed to a national consensus and cohesion: a common language; a solid belief in the principles of English common law and constitutionalism; a widespread commitment (albeit in diverse forms) to the Protestant religion; a shared revolutionary experience; and, perhaps most important, an economic environment which promised most free, white Americans if not great wealth, at least an independent sufficiency.

The American statesmen who succeeded those of the founding generation served their country with a self-conscious sense that the challenges of maintaining a democratic union were every bit as great after 1787 as they were before. Some aspects of their nation-building program--their continuing toleration of slavery and genocidal policies toward American Indians--are fit objects of national shame, not honor. But statesmen of succeeding generations--Lincoln foremost among them--would continue the quest for a "more perfect union."

Such has been our success in building a powerful and cohesive democratic nation-state in post-Civil War America that most Americans today assume that principles of democracy and national harmony somehow naturally go hand-in-hand. But as we look around the rest of the world in the post-Soviet era, we find ample evidence that democratic revolutions do not inevitably lead to national harmony or universal justice. We see that the expression of the "popular will" can create a cacophony of discordant voices, leaving many baffled about the true meaning of majority rule. In far too many places around the world today, the expression of the "popular will" is nothing more than the unleashing of primordial forces of tribal and religious identity which further confound the goal of building stable and consensual governments.

As we look at the state of our federal union 211 years after the Founders completed their work, there is cause for satisfaction that we have avoided many of the plagues afflicting so many other societies, but this is hardly cause for complacency. To be sure, the US Constitution itself has not only survived the crises confronting it in the past, but in so doing, it has in itself become our nation's most powerful symbol of unity--a far preferable alternative to a monarch or a national religion, the institutions on which most nations around the world have relied. Moreover, our Constitution is a stronger, better document than it was when it initially emerged from the Philadelphia Convention. Through the amendment process (in particular, through the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments), it has become the protector of the rights of all the people, not just some of the people.

On the other hand, the challenges to national unity under our Constitution are, if anything, far greater than those confronting the infant nation in 1787. Although the new nation was a pluralistic one by the standards of the 18th century, the face of America in 1998 looks very different from the original: we are no longer a people united by a common language, religion or culture; and while our overall level of material prosperity is staggering by the standards of any age, the widening gulf between rich and poor is perhaps the most serious threat to a common definition of the "pursuit of happiness."

The conditions that threaten to undermine our sense of nationhood, bound up in the debate over slavery and manifested in intense sectional conflict during the pre-Civil War era, are today both more complex and diffuse. Some of today's conditions are part of the tragic legacy of slavery--a racial climate marked too often by mutual mistrust and misunderstanding and a condition of desperate poverty within our inner cities that has left many young people so alienated that any standard definition of citizenship becomes meaningless.
More commonly, but in the long run perhaps just as alarming, tens of millions of Americans have been turned off by the corrupting effects of money on the political system.
Bombarded with negative advertising about their candidates, they express their feelings of alienation by staying home on election day.
If there is a lesson in all of this it is that our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens.

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created.

His answer was: "A republic if you can keep it."

The brevity of that response should not cause us to undervalue its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.
https://constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-library/classroom/perspectives-on-the-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it#:~:text=His%20answer%20was%3A%20%22A%20republic,of%20the%20people%20for%20their

Ah, well there we go... It seems you never actually learn what these concepts are, you just respond to what other people say about them. Blade did the same thing... He must have found the same website you did and he just copied all these quotes. I already responded to them and pointed out the lack of context. What you are doing is the same thing people do when they write E=mc2 and think that makes them smart because they're quoting Einstein, even though they have no clue what the equation actually means.

I didn't say WHO elects the president. I just said the president is elected and that makes us a democracy. If we elected the president directly, that would be direct democracy but as you said, the president is elected by electors who in turn represent us. THAT makes it a representative DEMOCRACY. Either way its still a democracy. BTW, we actually do elect our representatives directly.

Having a constitution, which almost every country in the world has now, simply means there is a set of laws limiting what the government can do.

Britain, Norway and Denmark for instance are constitutional monarchies because they have monarchs not presidents but they also have constitutions AND parliaments that are themselves representative democracies led by prime ministers as determined by the majority party. Our equivalent being the Speaker of the House.

Is this too complicated for you? Is it just easier to recite the simple but erroneous mantra that representatives turn a democracy into a republic?

You think Biden is keeping Americans safe by letting anyone and their terrorist uncle cross our borders at will? I thought a safe and secure border was part of his oath of office, a promise to the people of America.
For that matter don't sanctuary cities break federal law by allowing illegal invaders aid and comfort? How does Biden get a pass Biden is not executing the laws as written he is writing his own. With 5 million invaders sneaking around my back yard somehow I don't feel as safe as I once did ,before Biden swore an oath to we the people. FJB
I won't even start on him giving away my tax dollars to the most corrupt country on the continent Not even our continent mind you . Not even part of NATO. Again FJB.

Democracy is a form of Government. However, America is a Constitutional Republic, which is a different form of Government.

Many in America have rejected their American Citizenship, their allegiances to this Constitutional Republic, and their respect for those who protect and defend America. That is all admitted Behavior in a number of Polls and Surveys of those many People. It can also be seen every day in the Behaviors of the many people.

The two principal Political Parties have become the most corrupt organizations in America as they follow and practice their religions of Power and Greed. Their Voters think nothing of steadfastly supporting and electing the Corruption that is the Culture of the two Parties and their Partisan Unity.

60 years ago this Nation began its Cultural change to Division, Anger, and Hatred that came out of the Viet Nam War Era. That was when America began to blame its own Military, rather than its Political Leaders for the war. It was also the Culture of cowardly Draft Dodging, and the forgiveness of those who committed the Crime of Draft Dodging. Then came the failure of our own elected Senate who failed to ratify the Paris Peace Accords, thus nullifying all the Military sacrifices the American Military suffered in the war.

One can not appreciate this continuing Ungrateful Nation's Cultural change unless one lived the growth and expansion in the ramifications of this Cultural Change all these decades since.

This Ungrateful Nation and its Culture of Division, Anger, and Hatred has continued to this day. Many Americans are being tagged as American Terrorists just because of who and what we are. We did not surrender to the Evil of today's Unified Partisan Political Culture.

This is a Cultural now that is quickly traveling down the Road to Self Destruction. Many People have total allegiance to the Partisan Politics that is leading this destructive parade. The two major Political Parties have joined forces to make this self destruction happen. Each is Divided, Angry, and Hateful towards the other, in blind obedience to their chosen Partisan Masters.

Many Citizens don't even know they are self destructing. They have surrendered their Souls to the Ugly Evil of Combative Partisan Politics. Thus rejecting their own Free Will.

How does one protect and defend this Republic from that kind of Evil? Why should that Culture be protected and defended? Those loyal to the destructive Partisan Politics Culture really have no right to be protected and defended by Patriots allgiant to this Constitutional Republic.

There is no Freedom or Peace being offered by this Partisan Political Destructive Culture. It demands absolute Allegiance and Servitude to the Partisan Masters. Or else!

This Republic still exits, and still has allegiant American Citizens who have left the destructive Culture of Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans will probably continue and escalate their War with each other. They have clearly rejected their desire and capacity to be American Citizens of this American Constitutional Republic.

The rest of us in America, who still believe in America, only need to confine the carnage and destruction by Democrats and Republicans, and defend our Republic until the two Partisan Armies finally destroy each other. Which they will do.

We still have our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Freedom. All of which is worth protecting and defending from those seek to destroy them.

There are 335 million People in this Nation. Each of those People still has time to decide who and what they want to be. Will they choose Democrat, Republican, or American? The three are no longer interchangeable, are they?

I agree with your statement based on your scenario. But your scenario just isn't reality. The border is restricted... It allows legal immigration and is resistant to illegal immigration, just like it has been since we started to limit immigration back in 1910. Immigrants are processed and vetted, the exceptions being the few that sneak in but they usually wind up getting picked up and deported. Law enforcement is never 100%.

Closing the border means not letting ANYONE in period. I know Trump and his supporters would like to close the border, that's always been a theme among fascist movements but I think its a stupid idea founded on fear and loathing.

You think Biden is keeping Americans safe by letting anyone and their terrorist uncle cross our borders at will? I thought a safe and secure border was part of his oath of office, a promise to the people of America.
For that matter don't sanctuary cities break federal law by allowing illegal invaders aid and comfort? How does Biden get a pass Biden is not executing the laws as written he is writing his own. With 5 million invaders sneaking around my back yard somehow I don't feel as safe as I once did ,before Biden swore an oath to we the people. FJB
I won't even start on him giving away my tax dollars to the most corrupt country on the continent Not even our continent mind you . Not even part of NATO. Again FJB.