Image

Hero Protester of The Week

User avatar
For rejection of the security of a republic, and demanding the sanctity of mob rule, I nominate this nameless protester in Olympia Collective for Hero Protester of the Week Certificate and 5% off coupon at the nearest State Store.

4506579655_aab96b1293.jpg

User avatar
I'm thinking he's a candidate for the next issue of "The People's Dating Service."

User avatar
I have a funny feeling that his idea of real democracy is where he and his like-minded friends tell all the rest of us what's-what and we'd better jump or else.

User avatar
Comrade Whoopie wrote:I'm thinking he's a candidate for the next issue of "The People's Dating Service."
Have we finally found a real man for Pinkie?

User avatar
I for one am all for Black Sabbath style government. This man is the poster child for "when you listen to fools, the mob rules."

User avatar
No way would I date him. He lives with his mother. How can I tell, you ask?

By his pant legs. Look at how they're rolled up. No self-respecting adult male buys pants with legs so long he has to roll him up. Only his mother will do that with the idea that he'll grow into them. Never mind if he's forty years old and stopped growing his senior year of high school. It's important for Sonny-Boy's self-esteem to think he still has a chance of shooting up taller than Mama herself.

She also knits him sweaters with extra long sleeves and moose-heads on the chest—or at least she did until Sarah Palin came along. Now Mama can't knit Sonny-Boy moose-head sweaters anymore, unless she wants him shot by Palin. And if that happened, who would lick stamps for Mama's stamp album every Friday night, and clip her toenails for her while the two of them share cozy evenings at home watching old Murder, She Wrote reruns on the TV Land channel? (Secretly, Sonny-Boy would rather watch old Moonlighting reruns, but Mama thinks Maddie is a slut who'll just give Sonny-Boy bad ideas about women besides Mama herself.)

At least she doesn't buy him underwear. No, instead each morning she lays out for him those baggy old gray things with drawstrings that used to belong to his grandfather, made back in the days before underwear makers took into account details like extra room for your butt, or a convenient slit in the front so you don't have to drop everything at the public urinal or in Grandpa's case, the horse trough outside the town saloon. So instead Sonny-Boy has to tell front from back by the telltale hue of old faded stains if you know what I mean.

Besides, mothers like her think I'll just lure her boy into evil. Me with my flashy red headscarf and my flashy gold shovel, swilling Putinka from my flashy silver vodka flask while I strut around like a strumpet in my big thick boots that envelop my dainty little ballerina feet, so unlike her own feet with her calluses and corns and bunions and UTS (Ugly Toe Syndrome).

Now that I think of it, I'll bet she'd let the good Fraulein or Mrs. Al Czarweary borrow him for a few “odd jobs”—but only if they send him home before dark.

User avatar
Jeepers, after a Jiffy-lobo any man holding a protest sign looks good.

User avatar
Real Democracy? What does he think he got in the Democratic primary with Comrade Hilliary winning the majority of the votes, but losing the election? That was real democracy in action, don't you know?

User avatar
Isn't that the Travelocity Gnome? He just changed his hat from red to green.
Did you get any 'shrooms, Colonel?

Yes!
Insist!

I hate Parkay Oleo Democracy.

User avatar
Leninka wrote:Real Democracy? What does he think he got in the Democratic primary with Comrade Hilliary winning the majority of the votes, but losing the election? That was real democracy in action, don't you know?
Aren't you referring to comrade Gore in 2000? We still have yet to get over it.

User avatar
<prog off>

I'm not American. So maybe I do not understand the variant of English spoken in America.

"Democracy" simply means "Government by the People" (Demos=people, Kratos=force)
In practice this usually means that there are elections. (But not necessarily)

"Republic" simply means that the Head of State is elected by the people.
In practice this means that there is No King. (As opposed to the UK or much of Europe)

Therefore: A "Republic" is by necessity a "Democracy" but not the other way around. A Constitutional Monarchy can also be a democracy.

A republic is just one form of democracy.

So whenever an American says "We are a Republic, not a Democracy!" most English speakers in the rest of the world goes "??WTF is wrong with this guy?? Doesn't he understand English?"

If this guy says "insist on REAL democracy" to me it means "Insist that the People have REAL power in government." In other words, "Insist that YOUR vote makes a difference and that YOUR representative really represents you."

Anything wrong with that?

A few more random thoughts:
--"Democracy" is not equal to "Tyranny of the majority". A democracy can be that, but not by definition. By some definitions of "Democracy" a "tyranny of the majority" is not a democracy at all, because minorities are disenfranchised. Ways to prevent it is to require super majorities to change certain laws (the constitution), decentralization of power through federalism and strong local government and so on.
-- For a democracy to survive, no person or group of people can rule, but the only "Ruler" or "King" is the LAW. The people make the LAW through their representatives, and every person, including the lawmakers and the executive head of government is under the rule of that law. Some time ago someone wrote an article here on the cube about "democracy" and "republic" and he tried to show that the initial US constitution meant for the individual to rule or be "king". I believe he was deluded. If you read Thomas Paine you will clearly see that that the intention was for the Law to be "king".
-- I think the one big danger in America is an erosion of the Rule of Law. Obama rules by Czars and regulations, and the US supreme court rewrites ("interprets") the law as they seem fit. In a democracy the Executive cannot usurp Parliament (ruling without laws by means of regulations and Czars) and the Court cannot usurp Parliament, because the court is not elected by the people. Both of these scenarios will destroy the democracy by destroying the rule of law.
--The other big danger in America is the erosion of Individual Liberties. NEITHER A "DEMOCRACY" NOR A "REPUBLIC" GUARANTEES INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES. The American Constitution guarantees those liberties, which brings us back to the Rule of Law.
-- I think conservative Americans seem confused to the rest of us when they go off against the "democracy". If you want to communicate, use words that the rest of the world understands in the way the rest of the world understands those words. Otherwise you simply look stupid.

Now send me off to the Gulag to be re-educated!

User avatar
{off} And I'm sure this thread has taken an interesting turn. Here is how I see it. In a democracy you have pure mob rule. A democracy could vote to restrict free speech for instance, but in a republic where rule of law can supersede rule of mob, the courts should look at the constitution and say that the vote is unconstitutional. The democratic process of individuals voting is fantastic, but the republican process whereby the rule of law can supersede the rule of the mob is also fantastic. Hence one proper term might be a democratic republic, or a constitutional democracy. Revolutionary Paris is a fine example of democracy, while the integration of southern schools during the 50's and 60's is an example of the rule of law stepping in over the rule of the mob.

User avatar
To a prog, like a union; democracy is a wonderful thing. As long as you can get the majority vote (often by force or trickery) you can do whatever you want, without being hampered by such pesky notions as laws or constitutions. An apocryphal saying often attributed to Benjamin Franklin says "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner; a republic is a well armed lamb contesting that vote." Democracies can only protect the majority or controlling interest, while a well formed republic also protects the minorities.

User avatar
Colonel 7.62 wrote: Here is how I see it. In a democracy you have pure mob rule.

The problem is that your definition of the word "democracy" is just one of many possible forms of democracy, as the rest of the world understands the word. So to the uninitiated person (like me) it causes considerable confusion when a conservative American says "democracy is bad".

In Africa there is a saying: "One man, one vote! Once!"

The implication is that the "democratic process" is used to bring tyrants to power. The reason this happens is because there is no rule of law. The moment there is no rule of law, the democracy perishes.

So if ANYTHING BUT THE LAW rules, for instance the Mob, or Bob Mugabe, or Jacob Zuma, it is not a true democracy.

User avatar
Talking of the rule of law and how it is eroded by the SCOTUS: I read somewhere that the American supreme court decided that sex offenders could be kept in jail after their full sentences have been served.

This means that some bureaucrat somewhere is empowered to overrule the law as written by parliament and interpreted by a judge in a court and keep people in jail contrary to the law.

Clarence Thomas voted against it, because even if it may save lives by keeping fiends off the streets, it erodes the rule of law. The correct way to deal with the problem is for parliament (representatives of the people) to change the law so that harsher penalties for sex offences is required from the courts.

It is alarming that only two of the nine justices of the highest court of America understand this basic principle.

The power of the people to rule by law was usurped by unelected officials. Democracy is weakened.

User avatar
Yes, I believe the SCOTUS has gone too far with that. Sex offenders have become the new boogeyman in America, and the precedents set by stripping them of rights are horrifying. The Republic is no longer what it once was, and hasn't been since 1865...

User avatar
Obamugabe wrote:
Colonel 7.62 wrote: Here is how I see it. In a democracy you have pure mob rule.

The problem is that your definition of the word "democracy" is just one of many possible forms of democracy, as the rest of the world understands the word. So to the uninitiated person (like me) it causes considerable confusion when a conservative American says "democracy is bad".

In Africa there is a saying: "One man, one vote! Once!"

The implication is that the "democratic process" is used to bring tyrants to power. The reason this happens is because there is no rule of law. The moment there is no rule of law, the democracy perishes.

So if ANYTHING BUT THE LAW rules, for instance the Mob, or Bob Mugabe, or Jacob Zuma, it is not a true democracy.
It's sticky. You need BOTH the democratic process AND rule of law. If you have rule of law with no democratic process, you are screwed. If you have democratic process with no rule of law, then you are also screwed. When you combine the two, then there is Hope(TM) but one must be ever vigilant. As you can see in the US and other places, people are no longer vigilant...

User avatar
Comrade Colonel,

You got my blood pressure rising, in a good way. A democracy is the best form of government known to mankind. If it were not for the ancient Greeks, we would not have this gift bestowed upon us. Democracy has proven throughout the centuries that it works and it works for the people. The majority ought to rule, PERIOD! Why should we allow the minority to have say in any matter?! After all, it was the majority who killed Socrates! What is wrong with that? Nothing! Also, Comrades, let us not forget that our great leaders Marx and Engels praised democracy and said that, in the effect of, democracy is needed in order to reach our utopia! Collectivism depends on a democracy! A republic is very selfish, self centered, self righteous, individualistic nightmare to ever exist on this planet. And, to the ghosts of the forefathers of this evil capitalist union, I piss on your grave for creating a republic, but, do not worry my dead friends, we are changing what you created at a gradual pace to ensure true liberty and peace!!! Viva la democrazia!

{off character}
I cannot stress enough the importance of knowing what form of government is in operation in our nation. In recent times, we are being programmed to believe that a democracy is the "ideal" form of government. This programming is from the media, the schools, the power centers, the politicians, the lawyers, the judges, and the like. Republic is the proper description of our government, not democracy. I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction. To be sure, a republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except ONE KEY characteristic. In a republic, sovereignty is inherent in each individual. In a democracy, sovereignty is inherent in the majority, or the whole body politic. The framers of the Constitution for the United States of America, in the Constitutional Convention, concurred that a democracy is one of the worst forms of government, thus they had created a republic.

What is a republic? A republic is that form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, OR through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated; the word "people" may be either plural or singular; the majority only has advisory powers, not mandated; each individual is free to reject the majority group think, except if one hundred percent of a jury convicts; the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many; each people may act on his own, or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem; the people have no obligation to the government, instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people; the government is created by and subject to the will of the people; and each people has unalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other people, nor by any number, group, or collective of other people, as a result, each people exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group. A republic is individualistic in nature.

What is a democracy? A democracy is that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. In a pure democracy, 51 percent beats 49 percent. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority. In a democracy, each individual has no rights; that his or her work, his or her body, and his or her personality belong to the majority; and that the majority can do with him or her as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare, as a result, each individual exists only by the permission of the majority and for the sake of the majority. A democracy is collectivistic in nature.

SIDE NOTE: The above descriptions are a consensus of legal literature I have read.

The distinction between our republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution for the United States of America guarantees to every State in the Union a republican form of government:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...”
No State may join the Union unless it is a republic. Anything non-republican is repugnant and unconstitutional. Our republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Individual rights are the priority of our republic. The people have natural rights instead of "civil rights." The people are protected by the bill of rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop the entire majority from depriving a people of his or her rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

In a pure democracy, 51 percent beats 49 percent. There is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil privileges granted by a pompous majority. Only five of the ten amendments apply to citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy, though he injured no one, the majority found him unbearable and sentenced him to death for the "corruption" of Athenian youth.

In a democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. What is more, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. One may act on his or her own or through his or her representative as he or she chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people is obligated to its owner, the people. The people own the government agencies, period, not the other way around. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States, we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people (sovereigns -- see preamble and Amendment X) ---> government (subject to people) ---> citizens (subject to government -- see Amendment XIV for this reality).

The people did not "ordain and establish this Constitution" for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies, the people surrendered none of their power and authority, i.e., sovereignty. The adoption of this concept is why the United States has been called the "great experiment in self government." Self government, that is, YOU ARE your OWN government. The people govern themselves, while their agents (i.e. government) perform tasks listed in the preamble for the benefit of the people. This experiment in self government is to answer the question, "Can self governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have neither power nor authority over the people?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States. Please keep in mind, citizenship in the United States did not exist until July 28, 1868 (Amendment XIV). In reality, the United States is a mixture of the two forms of government, to wit: republican under common law and democratic under statutory law. The people enjoy their inherent natural rights in the republic whereas the citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as "civil rights") in the democracy.

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) and John Locke (1632 - 1704). Hobbes was on the side of government, and he believed that sovereignty ought to be vested in the government. Locke was on the side of the people, and he believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the people of the State, that is, sovereignty ought to be vested in the people. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists prefer Locke. In the United States, the people do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The preamble of the Constitution affirms the choice of Locke by we the people.

It is my hope that the United States will always remain a republic because I value liberty. Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist. Will you help me to preserve individual rights by supporting our republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the republic and a democracy? Will you help me keep our republic?

User avatar
Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈpə-blik\
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

de·moc·ra·cy   [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun,plural-cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
Use democracy in a Sentence

User avatar
My point, Statist in Chief, is that you do not communicate well to the rest of the world because you insist on defining words in ways that the rest of the world don't.

The definition of the word "Democracy " is VERY broad. A republic is just one type of democracy. The word Republic, in most of the world, simply refers to a state with an elected official as the head of state.

You are welcome to redefine words to suit your rhetoric, but you will not be able to communicate your message efficiently.

User avatar
"51 percent beats 49 percent. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority. In a democracy, each individual has no rights"

This does not follow from the broad definition of the word "Democracy"
--No democracy guarantees liberties and rights.
--The law guarantees liberties and rights.
--If there is no rule of law the democracy will not survive.

So the test of TRUE democracy is the rule of law. If that law guarantees individual liberties and rights then the people will have it. Otherwise not.

So to say that a democracy does not allow for individual rights is completely nonsensical and ridiculous.

Lastly: The sovereignty only resides in the People (individuals) as far as they have power to change the law. And for the individual that power is extremely limited. I believe this is a big philosophical mistake you make. True sovereignty lies in the law, not in the individual. It is pure common sense. You as an individual cannot change the law of the United States of America. There is a massive process involved. But the LAW has complete sovereignty over you.
Thomas Paine wrote: But where, says some, is the King of America? I'll tell you. Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony, be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

User avatar
Comrade Obamugabe,

You are close, but no soup for you. If I want to speak accurately, I use the language of the court. Formal dictionaries, as the one you used because I can tell is Merriam-Webster, use broad definitions and most often are not accurately defined. If you wish to speak to me Comrade, I suggest to you that you use the King's English. The LEGAL literature and references that I have studied tell me otherwise. You see, language is important, especially in the court. It is okay to speak broadly in everyday life, however, when you come into my court, you better know the language of the court, my Comrade.

In the United States, we speak three languages: Colloquial English, Formal English, and Legal English. Most of us are bilingual already, that is, we speak and write Colloquial and Formal English. Whilst each are similar, if one tries to communicate using one language while the listener is listening using another language, there is great opportunity for miscommunication. Therefore, language is important.

Colloquial English is the language pertaining to common conversation, or to mutual discourse; as colloquial language; a colloquial phrase; conversational; hence, informal. It is a dynamic, loosely defined language, and it can vary considerably from one geographical area to the next geographical area. It proliferates with special and paradoxical interpretations. One must “grow up” with the language to fully appreciate its idiosyncrasies. Foreigners always have great difficulty dealing with the various idioms. For example, if you think something is genuinely wonderful, you could say “That's really cool!” or “That's really hot!” Another way to express great approval is to exclaim, “That's bad!” or “That's good!”

Form English is precise communication that requires a more formal structure. Formal English is taught in the private and public schools, and home schooling. Formal English is the language of choice when strangers meet to execute common transactions. It is a stable language that typically requires multi-decades or even centuries to evolve its meanings. Unless otherwise specified, English dictionaries cast all words in Formal English, with the more common usage placed at the beginning of the definition. Dictionaries often will show colloquial (slang) or legal meanings as well. They are placed after the more accepted usages.

I favor Webster's Dictionary (1828 Edition) because it is useful in understanding words used in the Constitution for the United States of America, or in general to understand original intent and meaning. G. & C. Merriam Company's “Webster's Unabridged Dictionary” published in 1953 (or earlier editions) is great for understanding modern meanings.

Comrade Obamugabe, when you want accuracy in communication, Legal English is the preferred language. Legal English is also known as the "King's English," or the language of the court. What is the "King's English?" The King's English is correct or current language of superior speakers, in other words, pure English. Legal English is extremely established, requiring thousands of years for changes in meaning. For the reason that accuracy is required for excellent legal communication, legal definitions tend to be loquacious. The extended explanations are necessary to achieve accuracy. Legal dictionaries are not all called dictionaries per se. The more thorough dictionaries are called "Corpus Juris" or "Words and Phrases." A given word could require thirty or more pages to arrive at its exact meaning.

I favor, in descending order, Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1872 edition or earlier), Ballentine's Law Dictionary (first edition only), and Black's Law Dictionary (fourth edition or earlier). Later editions of Bouvier's Law Dictionary are more like legal encyclopedias.

Black's Law Dictionary Fifth Edition and higher are not as accurate because references to common law are progressively removed, and Roman (civil) law concepts are increased in order to conform to the law enforcement needs of power centers within every society. Power centers are organizations and social groupings, such as political parties, labor unions, church groups, media centers, government, and professional societies that hold political power based on their claim to represent their members and on their ability to lead public opinion.

The general rule of thumb is that older dictionaries are useful for understanding natural rights, natural law, common law, personal sovereignty, individual rights, and the point of view of the people. Newer dictionaries are useful for understanding civil rights, Roman (civil) law, centralized authority, and the government's point of view. All attorneys and judges are educated and trained in the latter; nonetheless, judges may go to special seminars to learn the former.

With that said, allow me to repeat my previous rhetoric.

Here are legal definitions of republic and democracy:

"Government. The government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, 'the government objects to the witness.'" Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

"Government; Republican Government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition

"Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition
Notice that in a democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. What is more, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. One may act on his or her own or through his or her representative as he or she chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people is obligated to its owner, the people. The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States, we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government ---> citizens.

Furthermore, a republic is the best form of government for liberty, but the worst form of government for enslavement. What makes a republic the best? Everybody is educated, knowledgeable of the differences, and choose to be people. What makes a republic the worst? Everybody is ignorant, does not know the differences, allow themselves to be citizens, and they get abused, that is what you do to citizens. Citizens are property. If you do not know the difference between a people and a citizen, how can you break out of the citizenship shell? So a republic is a wonderful form of government if everybody is educated. It is a terrible form of government if you are ignorant.

The best way to describe a republic is to first describe a democracy. Democracy and republic are normally used interchangeably; however, there is a distinct difference between democracy and republic. A pure democracy is easily defined, that is, 51 beats 49, majority rules. We hear the word democracy thrown around a lot. In recent years, it is commonly believed that a democracy is the ideal form of government. Supposedly, that is what was created by the Constitution for the United States of America, and the justification for invading other countries and overthrowing their tyrannical governments is, we are told, to spread democracy throughout the world. However, if you read the documents and the speech transcripts of the men who wrote the Constitution, you find that they spoke very poorly of democracy – and if you look at the reality of life in those lands where democracy has been delivered, you find little difference between the old and new regimes, except that the new ones often are worse.

We hear the word democracy from politicians, teachers, attorneys, judges, power centers (such as churches, unions, activist organizations, etc.), government, and media. When do you ever hear the word republic used other than the pledge of allegiance? When do you ever hear the word republic? Never! They do not like the word republic. So what is a democracy? Again, it is 51 beats 49. At first, democracy sounds like a nice idea. Let us get together, argue the issue, and let us vote on it. Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets. Sounds fair, right? However, what a democracy really is a dictatorship of the majority, therefore, the minority has no say or rights. Whatever the majority says, it is mandatory on the minority. Everything is mandatory, no choice. In a democracy, the sovereignty of the state is in the whole body of citizens. When the citizens vote on an issue, whatever they say, is mandatory. The government must obey it, and everybody else subject to it, must obey it. The sovereignty is in the entire group, or the collective. Each individual member of that group have no sovereignty. To be sure, they vote, they have an exercise of sovereignty, they cast the vote, but whatever the outcome is, everybody is subject to it. No choice. That is a democracy. Now, a republic.

In a republic, everybody is sovereign, equally free, and independent. A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect, certainly. You have representatives, you have voting, everything is exactly the same, not including one little detail. That little detail is the place of sovereignty. In a democracy, the sovereignty is in the entire body. The body acting as a unit; the body politic. In a republic, the sovereignty is in each individual member. Now, if you, Comrade Obamugabe are sovereign, and I am sovereign, you and I are equal and independent, are not we? Yes. I have nothing on you and you have nothing on me. The only time you have anything on me is when I injure you. If injure you, you are entitled to compensation, not profit, but compensation for your lost, whatever you lost. And if there is an argument about what you lost, you and I can go to a jury and allow the jury to figure it out. In essence, in a republic, we all are sovereigns, we all are equal and independent. Now, when an issue comes up for argument, it works just like in a democracy. We all argue back and forth, and then we vote on it. And when we vote on it, we now have a conclusion. However, in a republic, whatever that conclusion is, we do not allow the majority to take over the individual sovereign. If the majority could, you would not be a sovereign, and I would not be sovereign. We would have a democracy. If we all are sovereigns, and if we do not allow the majority to take over, what does that say? It says that whatever the majority decides, that decision is advisory, not mandatory. In a democracy, everything is mandatory. In a republic, everything is advisory. You can say, "Shove off! I do not like your way of doing things." You are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

We acknowledge that in our system, in the design of our system, we acknowledge nothing is perfect. The Greeks, when they formed a jury, it consisted of a 1,000 members. Their theory was, no one is rich enough to bride all 1,000 members. So that was their attempt to assure a honest jury. For some reason, I cannot explain why, in our system, our modern system, modern meaning the last 800 years or so, we said that 12 is a good size for a jury. If you can get 12 to agree with you, then maybe you have something going for you. If 12 people say you are guilty, each people on that jury represents 1/12th of society. If 100 percent of society is against you, now the rule becomes mandatory on you. What is the job of the jury? Well, one of the things, as you already know, is to judge the facts. The second job of the jury, which is really the first job, is to judge the law. As a sovereign, as a people, I decree what the law is, then I accuse, and I try to subject somebody to my law. I am claiming an injury. That is an injury to me. So we call in a jury, and the jury judges whether or not my law is reasonable. So this is the foundation of the American system, the common law. Customs and usages. The jury in their hearts, each member knows what is good, and what is evil. So this is the foundation of our system. You can charge anybody with any violation, but you must decree what the law is, and you must say what the facts were that violated that law. The defendant has the ability to call in a jury to defend himself, and the jury judges the legitimacy of that law, and judges whether or not the facts violated the law. That in a simple way describes our system, and our Founding Fathers understood this system.

We are a republic, and as a republic, we all are sovereigns individually and the laws are advisory. Unless you can get 100% of a jury to enforce. With a educated public, educated peers, the system would work well. Frankly, I do trust a jury. If I can get all the information to them, and either way, whether I am a plaintiff or defendant, I would take a chance of a random error by a jury, before I would take a chance on a designed-in error based on precedent that we get from judges. Juries are not bound by precedent, judges are. Judges are bound by statutes, juries are not. Do you see the difference between people and citizen? Those who take an oath or affirmation to support and defend the Constitution and all laws of the United States, etc., etc., is mandatory on them, because they have no choice due to their oath. Their oath or affirmation binds them legally, until they leave office. Here is the strange reality of our system. As I have mentioned in my previous rhetoric, we actually have two forms of government in place. We have a system for the people, and we have another system for the citizens. Republic under common law for the people, and democracy under statutory law for the citizens.

Everybody that I talk to who uses the word democracy in their everyday Formal English, they really mean a republic. Ask them what a democracy is, they describe it, and it pretty much is a republic that they are describing. Republic and democracy are often misconstrued and interchangeable. When you go to court, do not use the word democracy because it has a different meaning than Formal English. Republic and democracy are two different subjects. Basically, as I said earlier, language is important. If you are going to court, educate yourself on Legal English.

During the late 1970s, our fellow Comrade, Ayatollah Khomeini, was interested in ordaining and establishing some form of government for Iran. He chose a republic for Iran. Why? Well, it is very simple. The people of a republic are above the government because the people are sovereign. The people are not above the common law, but they are above the government's laws. The people who are citizens are subject to the government's law because they are citizens of the governmental entity. A republic, in one sense, is the best form of government for liberty, in the other sense, a republic is the worst form of government for slavery. What makes the difference? The difference is education, the knowledge of the people. If the people are educated and knowledgeable of their relationship between themselves and the government, then there is liberty. If the people are ignorant of their relationship between themselves and the government, then there is slavery and oppression. If you do not know that you can be a people and you are convinced that you are a citizen, then guess what, you will be subject to the government. A republican form of government is how "the powers that be," or "international elites," in or out of the government, excuse themselves from government jurisdiction. The powers that be know they are exempted from the government, but the citizens do not know. Therefore, the powers that be can operate a benevolent dictatorship over the citizens only while the people remain sovereign. That reminds me of King George III, he said, "It is I, who desires what is good and what is not good. Therefore, everybody who dost not agree with me is a traitor."

In a republic, the people are liberated, they possess sovereignty. If everybody knows that he or she is a people, then everybody is independent, free, and sovereign. You see, in a republic, whatever rules are created by vote or legislation, those rules are optional, not mandated. In a democracy, rules are mandatory on everybody, that is, majority and minority. In a democracy, everybody must follow the rules of the pretentious majority because the majority rules in a democracy. Our Founding Fathers understood this reality. Again, in a republic, the rules are advisory whereas in a democracy, the rules are mandatory. There is one exception in a republic, that exception is if 100% of a jury convicts against you, then that rule is mandatory on you. That is the line between mandamus and advisory. In a democracy, whatever rules are passed, they are mandatory on all citizens, everybody; majority rule. In a republic, whatever the majority says is advisory on the minority. Big difference, right? To deprive the people of their sovereignty, it is first necessary to get the people to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. That is done by getting them to claim they are citizens of that entity. Amendment XIV, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then you are a citizen. Otherwise, you must be a people.

Our Founding Fathers made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.

Comrade Obamugabe, I hope this new rhetoric is helpful.

User avatar
Comrade Statist

As I said before: You are welcome to choose whatever definitions for the words you want. But you still do not communicate well to the rest of the world.

Your whole differentiation between "Democracy" and "Republic" is based on your very specific but questionable definitions of the words "People" and "Body of free citizens" Again, in English as understood by the rest of us, these two expressions mean more or less the same. The definitions for Republic and Democracy are therefore more or less the same.

"We are a republic, and as a republic, we all are sovereigns individually and the laws are advisory."

This is your big mistake. The laws are not advisory. And this is the responsibility that you have towards the Republic: That you obey the law. That is why the Law has the power to take your, Life, your Liberty and your ability to pursue happiness away from you, if you break it.

No court in any universe will let you off the hook if you state that since the country is a republic, you are the sovereign and the law is advisory.

While the "People" or the "Body of free citizens" are sovereign in the sense that they, through the proxy of their elected representatives create the law, every citizen agrees by the social contract to be a subject of that same law, and is therefore not sovereign. If you do not agree to subject yourself to the law of the republic, you must either leave or go to jail.

So in theory you are the sovereign because you make the law. In practice you are a subject to that very law you made.

As far as a jury is concerned: Many legal systems do not have juries, a good example is that of Roman Dutch Law, a centuries old system where the verdict is given by the judge. It has nothing to do with the definition of a republic.

User avatar
Too many words to read!

I think the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic is that in a Constitutional Republic the government is limited in both it's purpose and reach by the constitution whereas in a Democracy there is no limit to what the majority can vote on and do.

User avatar
Ok Obamugabe, lemme explain modern American politics for ya.

The Democratic Party is undemocratic. Liberals are illiberal (and intolerant). Republicans are more democratic than Democrats. The Tea Party isn't really a political Party.

The Anarchists are organized. The Libertarians are anarchistic. Diversity is hailed as unity. Unity is denounced as racist. Poverty is empowering. Prosperity is our weakness. Conservatives are extremists. Radicals are moderates.

The classical definitions no longer apply. Political Correctness has turned the language inside out and rendered it meaningless. Oh and the definitions of today are subject to change (for Leftwing political expediency sake).

User avatar
And now, the Democrats hate it when you say Democrat Congressman, or Democrat side of the aisle, or Democrat party. Instead they say: "it's "Democratic Congressman," "Democratic side of the aisle, or "Democratic party. So now, instead of calling them "Democrats," I like to call them "Democra-Ticks."

And don't forget how communist front groups like using the word "Democracy" in their names:

Americans for Democratic Action
American Youth for Democracy

and the most well known one during the 1970's: SDS or Students for a Democratic Society

User avatar
Just one word on the notion that the Law only becomes mandatory when a jury applies it:
An important legal principle is that laws should be prospective rather than retroactive.
A jury acts per definition retroactively. If a law only becomes retroactively mandatory when a jury so decides, it destroys the whole purpose of the law.

This idea of the law being only advisory in effect destroys the rule of law.

User avatar
Leninka wrote: I like to call them "Democra-Ticks."

Blood sucking parasites!

Dont forget the Union of Socialist Soviet REPUBLICS! (USSR)

User avatar
Margaret wrote:Too many words to read!

I think the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic is that in a Constitutional Republic the government is limited in both it's purpose and reach by the constitution whereas in a Democracy there is no limit to what the majority can vote on and do.
Well said. That's the idea. In our republic, there are limits on not only what government can do, but also what the majority can do to the minority. A fine example is democracy in California shutting down gay marriage. The majority was able to vote and decide what is or isn't a right. Or in the southern states when the majority wished to keep blacks and whites separate and even deny interracial marriage. In this case though, the rights of the minority were protected from the tyranny of the majority by the courts. An example of the federal government properly doing it's roll to safeguard the rights of the people. I know the rest of the world equates democracy with a free society, but democracy; namely where the majority decide what the minority can have is flawed in many cases. Thus in the Republic that was created for the United States, we attempted to establish a rule of law and a system where the democratic process was balanced with the republican system; thus giving us a series of checks and balances all the way down to the ballot box. In a democracy you can vote away anything you don't like. In The Republic of The United States of America, the system of government is supposed to safeguard rights, even from the oppression of the majority.Sadly it isn't working too well right now IMHO.

User avatar
My Comrades

I have done my best to re-educate you.

I have failed.

I will now send three of my proles for immediate end-of-life-counselling to atone for my dismal failure.

*SIGH*

Life really sucks today, doesn't it?

Obamugabe

User avatar
Colonel 7.62 wrote:Yes, I believe the SCOTUS has gone too far with that. Sex offenders have become the new boogeyman in America, and the precedents set by stripping them of rights are horrifying. The Republic is no longer what it once was, and hasn't been since 1865...

OK. One last try. (I know I shouldn't)

The problem is not stripping the sex offenders of their rights. They should be hung or cooked in the electric chair anyway.

The problem is eroding the Sovereignty of the Law and giving power that should reside in the Law to an unelected bureaucrat. And an unelected bureaucrat in power is by definition a Tyrant.

This means that the People, who are the only legitimate lawmakers (via the proxy of their elected representatives in parliament) are in effect stripped of their power to legislate.

This means that Democracy (or the Republic, if you will) is weakened.

Rule of Law = Liberty

Rule of Man (like the guy who can decide to keep sex offenders indefinitely in jail) =Tyranny.

That is what this is about. Liberty versus Tyranny.

(Funny, it sounded so sexy when Michelle Bachman said it...)


 
POST REPLY