It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What it means to be part of a constitutional republic…

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:03 AM
Hi All,

I’ve noticed a trend recently stemming from the debates about Ron Paul and the current ongoing Republican GOP nomination in regards to the terms “democracy” and “constitutional republic”. It seems a lot of people are either confused or not really aware how the United States is governed and RP supporters have been just as guilty as anyone in regards to this. Im writing this thread in the hopes of educating Americans again how their system of representation was setup by the founding fathers and what the difference between a democracy and constitutional republic really is because countless times I have seen people reference the US as a democracy and while there are some democratic elements involved in the system the two are very different in ideals.

So to start off what are constitutional republics and democracies? From Wiki…

A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers can be separated into distinct branches.[1] The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic.

Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion. In practice, "democracy" is the extent to which a given system approximates this ideal, and a given political system is referred to as "a democracy" if it allows a certain approximation to ideal democracy. Although no country has ever granted all its citizens (i.e. including minors) the vote, most countries today hold regular elections based on egalitarian principles, at least in theory. The most common system that is deemed "democratic" in the modern world is parliamentary democracy in which the voting public takes part in elections and chooses politicians to represent them in a Legislative Assembly. The members of the assembly then make decisions with a majority vote. A purer form is direct democracy in which the voting public makes direct decisions or participates directly in the political process. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level and on exceptions on national level in many countries, though these systems coexist with representative assemblies.

So what does the above mean? Well in simple terms the main characteristics and typical feature of a democracy is “Rule by omnipotent majority”. In a democracy, the individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of “Majority-over-Man”. A republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control the majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect the individual’s God given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of the minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

As we can see there is a huge difference between the two forms of government and in my opinion American only became the great nation it is because of the decision of the founding fathers to become a constitutional republic. John Adams himself said the following:

“ Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism (democracy) and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[3] The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify.
No single individual is allowed to exercise executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead, these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. In a constitutional republic, "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."

I believe his words more than ever need to be understood by Americans as slowly the republic and the checks and balances that were put in place are eroded away by corrupt politicians and unconstitutional laws such as the Patriot Act, NDAA, CISPA etc etc…

Now I just want to make one other point here which is extremely relevant to the current ongoing republican nomination and the arguments surrounding Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney. Most people need to understand that the voting done by each state for their nominee is what is only considered a “straw vote” and it basically means nothing. After reading the above you should understand why it means nothing to but for those that havnt caught on yet America was note intended to be governed in any way by a “popular vote” ie majority rules. After most states have conducted their “popular vote” delegates are then selected first at precinct level, where they move on to be voted on to the district and state conventions. These delegates are a check and balance on the “popular vote” because the founders knew that if the system of voting was to ever be corrupted either by vote fraud or simply because the general population had become passive the “irate tireless minority” needed a way to ensure representation. Let’s be honest here if Mitt Romney is so popular capturing over 50 to even 70% in his home state of Massachusetts why it is that he is being dominated at pretty much every state convention that has been held so far even in his home state? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Now that my friends is why a democracy should never exist in the US and it should be something that everyone of you should never want nor tell other people you are a part of because every American should be proud and quite literally be honored to have the form of government the forefathers gave you. Please remember the scarifies millions of your countrymen went through to ensure you have the freedoms and liberties you have today, don’t allow yourself to wake up one day and its all stripped away because you were too lazy or ignorant to take the time to understand what is really means to be a part of a constitutional republic.

(P.S - Just for the record Im Australian and live in a democracy under monarch control I envy each and everyone of you for the system your forefathers created and hope that maybe one day our country can have a form of governance like yours, lets hope we dont have to fight a bloody revolution to gain our independence as your ancestors once did....)

edit on 14-5-2012 by TankWolf because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 07:49 AM
Thank you for addressing one of my pet peeves.
Too many Americans, especially their elected officials keep repeating the "Democracy" mantra as if they were to say it enough times it would become true.
The limits on power in a Republic are the last line of defense for the public against a bloated and overgrown bureaucracy.



log in