Republic poll!

[Ait'al]

Do you agree or disagree with this statement!

A republic is the absolute antithesis of democracy and was created for and from that purpose. It's purpose is the absolute stopping of democracy within itself!

Obviously, discussion below! 8)

[Sirisian]

A republic in the modern sense of a representative government is just a more manageable form of majority rule democracy. Proposing that it's the opposite is by definition wrong. The opposite would he a totalitarian government void of democracy.

Hopefully that clears things up.

[Figment]

A republic comes from the latin words "Res Publica", which means: "A case of the public".

It means the people control the government, not the rulers. It is therefore one of several formats of democracy.

[Program]

Yet in a way it is the opposite. Democracy is frequently referred to as tyranny of the majority, since so long as you have majority vote, you can do whatever you want. Now, that's where a republic comes in, in which the government is elected democratically, but the representatives answer to the people and the individual rights guaranteed by constitution trump all votes and legislation, ergot democracy is technically ruled by the majority, and republics are technically ruled by the individual. Your thoughts?

[Mightymouser]

I am hesitant to even enter into this conversation, because the premise is so obviously belligerent (to say nothing of obviously wrong).

That said, the terms you are using have an understood and settled meaning:

A democracy is a system where by the government is controlled by the people, either directly (through direct votes on all matters or governance) or indirectly (through elected representatives). As has already been pointed out a republic as a modern form of government is but a form of a democracy, in which the absolute will of the majority is tempered by a set of 'inalienable rights' which are protected (in the case of the United States, by a constitution), but the majority rule is still used to control the government.

The idea of a republic was certainly not created to discount a democracy, indeed in it's most basic definition a republic is a system of governance which has a Chief of State that is not a Monarch, but is instead an elected representative of the people.

Originally Posted by Program

Yet in a way it is the opposite. Democracy is frequently referred to as tyranny of the majority, since so long as you have majority vote, you can do whatever you want. Now, that's where a republic comes in, in which the government is elected democratically, but the representatives answer to the people and the individual rights guaranteed by constitution trump all votes and legislation, ergot democracy is technically ruled by the majority, and republics are technically ruled by the individual. Your thoughts?

A majority is but a collection of individuals, there is not some monolithic entity separate from the will of the individuals who make it up. Further to say a republic is ruled by the individual is to imply that an individual, with out the consent of the majority, has the power to affect the governance of the whole; that is simply not the case. Republics (specifically the type of republic in place in the US) are still the rule of the majority, even the 'inalienable rights' are subject to the discretion of a super-majority.

Take for example the push to add a 'Flag Burning Amendment' to the US Constitution. Laws against flag burning are in clear violation of the 1st Amendment, we have an absolute right as citizens of the US to express ourselves by burning the flag. Nevertheless, should a super-majority of people elect representatives with the intent to pass an amendment prohibiting such action, the right of the individual (even individuals who do not support such an amendment) would be removed, and that is well within the intended framework of our governance.

[Program]

Inalienable-Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

This is the first flaw in your argument. That legislation would have been unconstitutional, and ergot out of the question, regardless of the "super majority's" will. The legislation would not go through nor would it be legal or approved by the Supreme Court.

The second flaw is that the majority is simply a collection of individuals, as it is a collection of individuals in government who influence said government, as you stated. Ergot, it can have more power than the individual, making it a wholly separate entity than the individual. Not sure what importance that had to your argument in the first place, though.

Now, when I was saying a republic is "ruled by the individual," I was getting at the main idea, not that there is a party head with absolute rule over the state, but rather the individual person technically having the be all end all power in some cases, i.e. inalienable rights cannot be trumped by a majority vote, legislation, president, etc.

[Ait'al]

If you think the definition is false just say no and say why... It's literally a poll on the definition of something. The discussion has the point of it's meaning. Why would you be hesitant to enter it. You are imagining things! I don't care one pituty if you agree or disagree. That is the point! This is a way to get people to simply define things. That is the most important thing in an argument. You have to do that first... So this is a very good exercise and discussion!

So far the conversation appears more productive than 99% of them on this forum!

Republics (specifically the type of republic in place in the US) are still the rule of the majority, even the 'inalienable rights' are subject to the discretion of a super-majority.

Slight side bar here. I guess I'll be the one to stupidly derail my own thread a bit.... 8\

But in our case is that intentional or an aspect of an attack upon the system. AKA anything that tries to divert itself or has diverted itself from it's intended purpose. If it's outside the bounds it is not a part of the system. We have a stated intent in the higher law whether anyone wants to admit it or not! The lower laws conform to it to follow it's purpose. That is a principles government! If someone uses them to imply out the desire of the basic part of law it is not legal. It does not matter how badly it is written! Though people do this now constantly. All that matters is that absolute conforming to the base principle! No matter what you will argue, and you will, those minor arguments are not ignorant they are attempts to excuse and avoid the principle! If you are principled to the individual freedoms etc you cannot excuse a half assed version or you are not really going that direction! A principles government does not do it in a moderate way in a republic! Period! Correct?

Is that a safe assumption or sound statement? particularly if it's as a republican form of government specifically!? I guess that technically adds to the question of definition afterall.... 8) Is or isn't a republic always designed on the extreme of a principle? Is that part of the definition of a republic?

[Mightymouser]

Originally Posted by Program

Inalienable-Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

This is the first flaw in your argument. That legislation would have been unconstitutional, and ergot out of the question, regardless of the "super majority's" will. The legislation would not go through nor would it be legal or approved by the Supreme Court.

The second flaw is that the majority is simply a collection of individuals, as it is a collection of individuals in government who influence said government, as you stated. Ergot, it can have more power than the individual, making it a wholly separate entity than the individual. Not sure what importance that had to your argument in the first place, though.

Now, when I was saying a republic is "ruled by the individual," I was getting at the main idea, not that there is a party head with absolute rule over the state, but rather the individual person technically having the be all end all power in some cases, i.e. inalienable rights cannot be trumped by a majority vote, legislation, president, etc.

A constitutional amendment cannot be ruled unconstitutional, which is my whole point. Thus the power of the super-majority (needed to pass such an amendment) trumps the will of the individual. The fact that 'inalienable rights' are in fact not inalienable is why I put it in quotes.

[Ait'al]

No an amendment can be ruled unconstitutional. If a prior part is contrary it still cannot counteract itself. If you have the first amendment and you put the opposite unless you remove it you cannot.

And that voids the very premise of the Fed vs. Anti-Fed argument! Their own arguments, on both sides, was premised in that the bill of rights already existed naturally and hence, literally, legally! wasn't it? So then it was an argument on semantics and wether the law would become legalistic or flatly attacks at once or whatnot? The law in our country is literally based on already on those ideas and they ARE law. But it is such a big concept it cannot be written down practically. But it is still law! In fact it is the highest point of law! The bill of rights are just a few specific points!

Or, at least, that is what I took from certain parts of the Fed vs. Anti-Fed arguments. From actual reading of it, that is. It seemed inescapable as the premise of the argument. Fed: We must not right them down to avoid legalism and avoiding of the intent. Anti-Fed: we must right something down or they will think there are no specifics and void it immediatly and act as if there is none! In otherwords they were stating there was a greater aspect the constitution or was build on. Take it at minimum to be the fact that the preamble says WE the people and is a so and so government. The constitution does not have to refer to it in so many ways. It is expected and required people know what those other things are ahead of the constitution and demanded. And it is all a part of law!

AKA the constitution is not a legalistic document. Legalistic means point by point definition. What the stupidly do now instead of understanding the meaning or agreement within! It's based on something and bound to something more complex. But it does stipulate specific things! And by that I mean the articles of government to give it boundaries not the bill or rights. That is merely chosen wording of an amendment, which by all accounts of the time did not add to the law one iota! The rest is literally always to conform to the spirit of the document! That is personal freedom. In which we have it supremely individually. the point of saying state in the 10th amendment is not to say the state has the majority. It is to say the federal doesn't. The people individually do absolutely! The state only when given in states government legitimately, as it tends to steal it from the people!

So how can't an amendment be unconstitutional. if it can't be we can't be a principles republic. Because violating said principle could always be unconstitutional!

And I'm saying in the end that those who are making current arguments are sitting in certain spots purposely to bypass it. And simply not going the whole stretch to finish the argument to find the answer! By that I mean those in government doing what they are doing. And they are doing that on purpose or as in heinous personal character which ironically voids them of the possition or makes them instantly break a law! This is where our personal moral things come into play! And we've let it slip. But they are still doing it! None of them whish to complete the argument and blatantly sit short of it and it's simple to understand stand that. So hence they are, as you said, belligerent to finishing the law and doing it correctly. That is criminal! Voiding any such argument! It would be simply becuase it is not finished.

Also, I think I'm someone demenstrating my own point. You must take in the meaning of the document and intent to understand it. You have to think of directly the chosen style or wording etc. The whole bullshit from the SC is mistaken and stupid! Those little terms, what are they, are simply misdirection, literally! You are thinking of stylised writing and any form because it is not restricted in teh constitution. What matters always is the writers intent! How ere the others logically feasible. It is an impossibility to not right with intent. if you follow that logic you should know no law makes sense otherwise. And you are implying an intent whenever you give a definition. it is the same thing. And congress determines that. SC can only deam it in violation of itself! Judicial review as it is stated today is a load of bull! It's not even basic sense or logical if you take the though completely to it's end and think about it. It's completely flatly against reality!

If an amendment can not be unconstitutional what is the point of congress taking an oath to the constitution if there is no practical point!? There must be something or the oath of congress is pointless. And it's not!

Word of themselves, put in a line and stated by definition one by one after the other strictly as the individual definition does not make the meaning of the sentence. There are more complex aspects of speech. And they were intended to be understood and are law! Jefferson states this specifically. I would have to find the quote. He says you cannot figure out the law by arguing over the meaning of words. That was absolutely not the law. Which is how we do it now all the time! AKA You must look at the style of communication, which literally forces the issues as to if there is an intent. It's just a fluent, intelligent one!

Er.. yea, now I'm really off topic! 8) My last post was more to the point of the topic! I shot myself in the foot already!

[Mightymouser]

No, it cannot. There is no framework in place under any branch of government to rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional; the Judiciary has the power only to interpret the constitution as written. In fact the power of Judiciary Review, which is what the SCOUS uses to invalidate laws it finds unconstitutional comes not directly from the Constitution itself, but is a power the Judiciary derived from itself in Marbury v. Madison. Chief Justice Marshall defined the power to be implied by his interpretation of the reading of Article 3 and the Supremacy Clause of Article 4, which holds the Constitution as the 'Supreme Law'.

No clause in any part of the constitution, or any jurisprudence developed thereafter, provides a means for an amendment to be found unconstitutional.

A perfect example of this is prohibition; the 18th Amendment stripped away individual rights, and the 21st repealed that amendment (which is the only way to overturn it) and gave the power to regulate 'intoxicating liquors' to the states.

If an Amendment was proposed, and passed, which amended Article 2 such that Presidents served for life and had supreme authority over government such would then be the law of the land. The founders entrusted the people with the responsibility to ensure that such a thing never happened and that all Amendments to the Constitution were made in the benefit of all.


Edit to add: I'm having a bit of trouble following your thought process, but let me state; the preamble of the Constitution is widely recognized to hold no legal authority what-so-ever, it is sometimes used to help the judiciary better understand other parts of the Constitution, but only to the same degree that other contemporary writings by the founders and others are used to the same effect. The Constitution is the 'Supreme Law', and all powers given to the Federal Government come solely from it, there are areas of wide differences in interpretation (the 2nd Amendment is a good example of such), but the text is the only source of Federal Power. Thus 'the understood spirit' of the text is meaningless if there is not actual text to support said 'spirit'.



Second edit; because every time I read this thread it jumps out at me. Ergot is a type of fungus, ergo is a Latin phrase meaning hence or therefore.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Program

Inalienable-Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

This is the first flaw in your argument. That legislation would have been unconstitutional, and ergot out of the question, regardless of the "super majority's" will. The legislation would not go through nor would it be legal or approved by the Supreme Court.

The second flaw is that the majority is simply a collection of individuals, as it is a collection of individuals in government who influence said government, as you stated. Ergot, it can have more power than the individual, making it a wholly separate entity than the individual. Not sure what importance that had to your argument in the first place, though.

Now, when I was saying a republic is "ruled by the individual," I was getting at the main idea, not that there is a party head with absolute rule over the state, but rather the individual person technically having the be all end all power in some cases, i.e. inalienable rights cannot be trumped by a majority vote, legislation, president, etc.

That has nothing to do with what a republic is. That's what a constitution is for, which can be changed by supermajorities: amendments.

[Figment]

If we were to make a list of governments, Republics and Democracies can never be considered an anti-thesis of one another as they aren't mutually exclusive. Therefore the question and poll are pretty much moot.

Note however, that there are types of republics that call themselves republics and in theory are republics, but in practice are controlled by nobles, oligarchs, a single party, etc.

[Program]

Originally Posted by Mightymouser

A constitutional amendment cannot be ruled unconstitutional, which is my whole point. Thus the power of the super-majority (needed to pass such an amendment) trumps the will of the individual. The fact that 'inalienable rights' are in fact not inalienable is why I put it in quotes.

No, it's like Asimov's Laws of Robotics! An amendment cannot conflict with a prior one, especially ones that guarantee unalienable rights, thus the Flag Burning Amendment could not have been an amendment in the first place because it was in conflict with the First Amendment. In fact the 16th Amendment conflicts with certain provisions in the Constitution regarding the Legislative branch...

[Mightymouser]

Originally Posted by Program

No, it's like Asimov's Laws of Robotics! An amendment cannot conflict with a prior one, especially ones that guarantee unalienable rights, thus the Flag Burning Amendment could not have been an amendment in the first place because it was in conflict with the First Amendment. In fact the 16th Amendment conflicts with certain provisions in the Constitution regarding the Legislative branch...

That is completely incorrect; as proven by the fact that the 21st Amendment not only conflicted with, but actually repealed an earlier amendment (the 18th).

The 16th Amendment is another good example, it was adopted to overturn a SCOUS decision (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.) which said that disproportionate direct taxes were unconstitutional under Article 1. In response Congress passed (and the states ratified) the 16th Amendment which gave Congress the power to levy direct taxes without apportionment by amending the powers granted by Article 1.

This is the very definition of amendment, which means to alter that which was present before; they can literally rewrite any section of the document to say anything, and in cases of conflict, the amendment overrules the prior statement. In the case of the Flag Burning Amendment, which has been passed by the House several times but never passed by the Senate or ratified, the text reads: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." This would then overrule the 1st Amendment's freedom of expression guarantee in respect to flag burning.

[Program]

NO, it does not. My right to Freedom of Speech, Religion, Peaceful Assembly, etc. is unalienable, and guaranteed. Under no circumstances can they be altered or removed. I understand what an amendment is, but in this system there are exceptions, in which no entity can remove or alter said amendments, and again I refer to the definition of unalienable. Now, the point I was making about conflict with prior amendment was solely in reference to those guaranteed rights which we have. I think there is room for amendment, as we shouldn't consider African-Americans as 3/5's of a person anymore. I also understand what you're trying to say about the 21st and 18th amendment, but the 21st amendment made sense. Now with the 16th amendment, I was merely saying I don't agree with it.