A lot of American people make this statement. I’m curious : when/where are you taught that? (That’ a real, not rhetorical, question)
It can work both ways. When the people vote in a measure (California’s Prop 187, cutting off all public aid to illegal immigrants) and the court throws it out as unconstitutional, many wailed that we had ceased to be a democracy. They overlook the limitation: we are a constitutional democracy, and the majority, no matter how large, is prohibited (in theory) from passing a law that violates the constitution.
“We’re a Republic, not a Democracy” had a vogue during the Vietnamese War, when the war was unpopular, but still had Congressional support.
I’ve talked to people who say that the U.S. ceased to be a Republic when we passed the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct statewide election of Senators. Instead of a “Republic of States,” we’re now a “Democracy of the citizens of the States.” Personally, I think this is a really dorky claim, but there are at least some people out there making it.
History and Government class for me.
I’d heard it before but we went into detail.
It’s something that is taught early like this, I remember it from age 10-11 or so:
Democracy: Like New England “town hall” governments, or like the Greek city state of Athens.
Republic: Elected leaders make decisions for the electorate, who do not directly participate in making those decisions but get to select the elected leaders.
Monarchy: Rule by King/Queens
Constitutional Monarchy: There is a King/Queen, but they follow a body of laws and most decisions are made by elected leaders like in a Republic.
I think a lot of people forget later on in high school civics or similar classes when these definitions are improved upon and it’s explained that you can be both a democracy and a Republic, for example.
History class can muddy the waters too, as you’ll learn about the Federalist papers and other writings of the founding fathers. In the 18th century democracy was a “dirty word”, and Western thinkers considered it akin to “mob rule.” So without the understanding as to how the word developed someone who just learns in history class about how the Founding Fathers made very sure we didn’t have a “democracy” can easily misunderstand how the word is used in other contexts.
The democracy is “mob rule” motif goes back to the ancient Greeks. Plato and his crowd abhorred the “rule of the people”, which is the exact translation. Winston Churchill once observed that “Democracy is the worst form of government ever invented. Except for all the others.” We can still get really shitty results, but then we have nobody but ourselves to blame.
I think most of us learn in elementary school that Athens was the first “True Democracy” in that the people (or at least certain males) voted directly on everything. We in the US have a “Representational Democracy” as opposed to a True Democracy". And then some folks get hung up on the literal translation from the Greek: “rule by the people”. But the word, in English, has taken on a much broader meaning, per my dictionary reference, above.
Contentious. As late as 1834 a British king defied Parliament to remove a Prime Minister. That gambit ultimately failed and was the real death knell of royal interference in Parliamentary politics, but prior to that British monarchs still enjoyed some real significance, though it steadily declined over the decades. A George III was not supreme, but he was hardly a paper tiger either.
In grade school, when I learned to “pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands.”
There is nothing in the Constitution which extends such privileges and benefits to foreign invaders. This was a blatant act of corruption on the part of the judges involved, if not borderline treason.
Meh, I could care less.
“Invaders”?:dubious:
People coming to the US to make money cutting your lawn are “invaders”?
CIA World Factbook deems us a “Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition” so I think it’s hair splitting. Especially once you consider linguistic evolution of terminology. If somebody is writing a PoliSci paper, by all means, correct them. Outside of that circumstance though I don’t think pressing the issue brings any real benefit.
A country can be both a republic and a democracy. Similarly it can be a monarchy and a democracy.
Similarly a country can be a republic and not a democracy and a monarch and not a democracy.
I and all the British posters on this board were born in monarchies, but they were born in democracies whereas I was born in Iran, which was not.
A pledge written by some people that is not in the constitution. The pledge does not explain that it is incorrectly fighting some pedantic point of political science making a false distinction about democratic republics.
It isn’t even correct hair splitting. There is a lot of overlap between the set of republics and the set of democracies. The People’s Republic of China is in fact a republic. It is not a democracy.
The courts have ruled that children residing in the country, legally or illegally, have the right to an education. All people residing here are entitled to emergency medical care.
Denying this would create a permanent underclass, ignorant and ill. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who would favor such a situation is far more guilty of treason than the members of the courts who have ruled against it.
But, whatever. If you don’t like our laws, move to Yemen.
There is nothing in the Constitution that asserts or even suggests any such “right”.
Do you even know what treason is? See Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Foreign invaders, who are in this country illegally, certainly constitute enemies of the United States. To hold then to be “entitled” to the public resources of this nation, to the detriment of the legitimate citizenry, thereof, certainly constitutes adhering to them, and giving them “aid and comfort”; especially when this is done in clear defiance of the will of the people.
I say that the judges who struck down Proposition 187, by their actions, fulfilled the Constitutional definition of treason.
How ironic that you should, in defending criminals and invaders, accuse me of not “liking our laws”. Do you only “like our laws” when they cater to our enemies, but not “like our laws” which seek to protect us therefrom?
I might call “La Raza” invaders, but your average field-working Mexican, not so much.
If they are not citizens of this nation, and if they are not here legally, then yes, they are foreign invaders. It makes no difference if they march across our borders bearing rifles, or sneak across our borders bearing lawn mowers. They are still foreign invaders, and it is specifically a duty and responsibility of our government to keep them out. Any act of government which caters to them is an act of malfeasance, corruption, and possibly treason.
Oh God, I nearly pissed myself laughing at this.
They’re not “invaders”, they’re the future.
I am not sure which is the most afflicted, your use of English or your knowledge of Politics.
Stange no-one in authority has charged these treasonous people under the laws of the land.
Oh, no, I forgot, it is just right wing glurge, not real life.