April 8, 1913

[Linc]

So it's about Libbos and not party with you and Lord P. huh? :lamo

Wilson and Roosevelt were Libbos, so, are you sure you want to go there?

 

[Linc]

I don't see a Conservative or Liberal label behind the candidates we vote for.
Faux for Cons to whine party.

Why do you and others feel this must be a democrat vs. republican thread?
Don't we have enough of that? Can we keep the merits, and lack of, the 17th amendment a non partisan issue?

The 17th amendment was a gift from TR to the USA to stop the Elite/Gilded wing of his party from Gerry-Mandering and owning both chambers.
His Bullmoose completed his work .

 

[Linc]

are you sure you want to go there?

I don't think Gohmert should have gone there with Holder.
How did FOX spin that ?

 

[RedAkston]

The military wasn't de-segregated at that time.

The Navy was. From Wikipedia:

Wilson was "deeply racist in his thoughts and politics" and his administration racially segregated federal employees and the Navy

 

[vesper]

When you think about it, it's really unlikely that the Constitution could have ever been ratified if the idea that Senators could be elected by the people. By allowing state governments to appoint their own representation it assured them control/power over legislation while the House was designed to give the voice of the people power through their elected representation. It was the intent of the Framers to establish a federal system with a central government of limited powers balanced by sovereign state governments. Pity that wasn't respected because we are sure paying for it now.
The OP mentioned a Constitutional Convention. It would be a daunting task to reach that point but not impossible. The only method ever used in our history is the passage of an amendment by two thirds of both houses of Congress and approval by three quarters of the states.
Article V does not allow a constitutional convention whose delegates can directly change the Constitution like make up a new one but it sure as heck would have the power to restore it. It says specifically that two thirds of the states can call for “a Convention for proposing Amendments” that shall only become “Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.” It would be a limited-purpose convention and the 17th Amendment would be a very good place to focus. If the 17th Amendment were repealed and term limits placed on members of Congress and the Supreme Court, we might be able to save this Republic.

 

[The German]

The President, at the time, purged the government of all black employees.

Still ignoring the point.

Why have an opinion when you believe that everything is going to evolve in society anyway?!

 

[notquiteright]

The people voted for their representatives in the house and the states sent their representatives (Senators) prior to the 17th amendment. The states have no say now. Even our own representatives that we elect don't even speak for us. The ACA was passed with less than 50% support from their constituents and far less support from the states. What if the Republicans gain control and pass an anti-gay marriage law even if 30 states oppose such a law? The way it is now the states are at the mercy of the feds, no matter what piss poor decisions those feds make.

Using the ACA is a flawed argument, if the Congress 'refused to listen' to the people who voted for them, why would you think they'd listen to a state's politicians? The anti-gay laws are as flawed- the courts are striking down the laws passed at the state level, they would do the same at the federal level. Please tell us what happened when the GOP held the White House and Congress- you must remember that, it was not that long ago.

If you read up direct election of Senators you'd see many states had already started doing just that. The Feds didn't force this on the states, the states were out infront of the Feds on this one. There was no 'tyrannical' Federal government here.

The biggest problem I have with your argument is this- if the people who voted for their state rep also voted for their Federal rep- what makes you think these people would look to a different sort of political lean at one level vs the other? Do hard and fast CON states send flaming LIBs to Congress? What POV would a state body have that is different from the people who elected them?

It seems more like the lament of a Political lean that is finding itself marginalized and rather embrace Progress, looks to freeze life in an era long gone and not really as rosy as those would like to think.

 

[notquiteright]

When you think about it, it's really unlikely that the Constitution could have ever been ratified if the idea that Senators could be elected by the people. By allowing state governments to appoint their own representation it assured them control/power over legislation while the House was designed to give the voice of the people power through their elected representation. It was the intent of the Framers to establish a federal system with a central government of limited powers balanced by sovereign state governments. Pity that wasn't respected because we are sure paying for it now. The OP mentioned a Constitutional Convention. It would be a daunting task to reach that point but not impossible. The only method ever used in our history is the passage of an amendment by two thirds of both houses of Congress and approval by three quarters of the states. Article V does not allow a constitutional convention whose delegates can directly change the Constitution like make up a new one but it sure as heck would have the power to restore it. It says specifically that two thirds of the states can call for “a Convention for proposing Amendments” that shall only become “Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.” It would be a limited-purpose convention and the 17th Amendment would be a very good place to focus. If the 17th Amendment were repealed and term limits placed on members of Congress and the Supreme Court, we might be able to save this Republic.

I agree that right after a revolution where the 13 colonies had a history of independent of each other that they would not willing subordinate themselves to a central power. Look at how poorly managed the Revolution was in terms of supplies and pay for the troops. Look at how badly the Confederation was prior to the Adoption of the Constitution. The States had no real history of cooperation or subordination.

Now State assemblies had a rather spotty record of getting Senators to Congress- deadlocks and disputes in State legislatures caused problems at the Federal level. The most famous one was Delaware not seating one of it's Senators for 3 years. There was a 16 year period where 20 states had 46 deadlocked elections.

Before the adoption of the 17th amendment 33 states had direct primaries. The trend was set by the States themselves.

While today the rallying cry is State's Rights, in the Gilded Age people saw state control of the senators as corporate monopolies strangling the Federal Senate.

Term limits on Congress may help- the GOP took control in the great Newt Revolution promising limits... few actually kept that pledge- imagine that.

I'd be dead set against trying to 'churn' the Supreme Court with term limits- perhaps a better idea is a fitness standard to insure the Justices still can focus with the level of cognitive skills the Highest Court requires.

 

[RedAkston]

Using the ACA is a flawed argument, if the Congress 'refused to listen' to the people who voted for them, why would you think they'd listen to a state's politicians? The anti-gay laws are as flawed- the courts are striking down the laws passed at the state level, they would do the same at the federal level. Please tell us what happened when the GOP held the White House and Congress- you must remember that, it was not that long ago.

If you read up direct election of Senators you'd see many states had already started doing just that. The Feds didn't force this on the states, the states were out infront of the Feds on this one. There was no 'tyrannical' Federal government here.

The biggest problem I have with your argument is this- if the people who voted for their state rep also voted for their Federal rep- what makes you think these people would look to a different sort of political lean at one level vs the other? Do hard and fast CON states send flaming LIBs to Congress? What POV would a state body have that is different from the people who elected them?

It seems more like the lament of a Political lean that is finding itself marginalized and rather embrace Progress, looks to freeze life in an era long gone and not really as rosy as those would like to think.

A progressive defending the 17th amendment with less than nothing? Color me shocked... :roll:

 

[notquiteright]

A progressive defending the 17th amendment with less than nothing? Color me shocked... :roll:

A CON ignoring how we REALLY got the 17th amendment and how flawed his argument is? Color me shocked... :roll:

 

[WCH]

no, you are deliberatly ignoring a point I made.

Why have any political opinion - when you believe that society is a evolving concept anyway?

You mistook what I said. Mississippi was being pressured from within and throughout this country to change. No one needed to throw a pissy fit to get it done.

 

[The German]

You mistook what I said. Mississippi was being pressured from within and throughout this country to change. No one needed to throw a pissy fit to get it done.

Yeah sure. Pressured from within.... maybe by it`s minority black population.

Never enought to actualy get a civil rights bill passed.

 

[1750Texan]

On this date (101 years ago today as I type this), the 17th amendment was ratified. For those of you who do not know, the 17th amendment allowed the direct election of US Senators. It essentially removed the voice of the states from the federal government. Our founders set up a system of checks and balances and the 17th amendment eliminated one of those.

Other than the 18th amendment (ban on alcohol), this is the stupidest amendment ever passed in the US IMO. Our founders set up a form of government where the local and state governments had the power - a limited federal government. Since it's passing, the progressives have slowly changed this and changed that and we now have the explosion of federal government intrusion into our lives that we see taking place now.

IMO we are long overdue for a Constitutional Convention where we can repeal the 17th amendment and place a term limit on Senators and Representatives in an effort to reign in the federal government. It has gone too far and the groundwork was laid 101 years ago today.

You are conflating the method of electing US Senators with the weakening of local and state governments by progressives.

If you return the power to the states to elect and seat Senators, it is the state's right to seat or not seat a Senator--as it had been done in the past-- prior to the 17th. The founders believed that the populace could not be counted on to make an informed decision of whom to elect as their Senator. The People disagreed and amended the Constitution [17th amendment].

By the way, it is not nessassary to call a Constitutional Convention to repeal an amendment...as you noted, the 18th amendment was recinded by the 21st. A Constitutitonal Convention was not needed to do that.

 

[WCH]

yet it was the people of the united states who championed for these ammendments. the state can not exist without the consent of the people it governs.

Congressman Charles Lindbergh said of the passage of the act:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress. . . . If we had a people's Congress, there would be stability.

The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government."

The Wall Street cartel never released their hold and the American people never took control of Congress.

"In the Federal Reserve Law, they have wrested from the people and secured for themselves the constitutional power to issue money and regulate the value thereof." H.W. Loucks

 

[Master PO]

Using the ACA is a flawed argument, if the Congress 'refused to listen' to the people who voted for them, why would you think they'd listen to a state's politicians? The anti-gay laws are as flawed- the courts are striking down the laws passed at the state level, they would do the same at the federal level. Please tell us what happened when the GOP held the White House and Congress- you must remember that, it was not that long ago.

If you read up direct election of Senators you'd see many states had already started doing just that. The Feds didn't force this on the states, the states were out infront of the Feds on this one. There was no 'tyrannical' Federal government here.

The biggest problem I have with your argument is this- if the people who voted for their state rep also voted for their Federal rep- what makes you think these people would look to a different sort of political lean at one level vs the other? Do hard and fast CON states send flaming LIBs to Congress? What POV would a state body have that is different from the people who elected them?

It seems more like the lament of a Political lean that is finding itself marginalized and rather embrace Progress, looks to freeze life in an era long gone and not really as rosy as those would like to think.

while you presented some facts, you did not present all of them, and those facts you did not list hurt your argument, so lets look at these facts.


fact: that the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government in article 4 section 4

by this fact it means the federal government and all state governments must [have to a republican form of government]

fact: all state governments per their state constitution allow the people of a state to alter or abolish their form of government

this right to alter or abolish allows the people of a state to institute [any form of government they wish].

fact : if the people of a state government alters it form of government, to any other form other an a republican form, [that state must leave the union]

a state must leave the union, because it is not operating under [Republican principles].

fact:in the mid to late 1800's the progressive movement in america began, and through this movement the idea of initiative, state referendums and the idea of directly electing senators came into being under what is know as the "Oregon system".

under constitutional law, a state in the union cannot have initiative, state referendums because because it is not a republican form of government, [direct referendums are direct democracy] and unconstitutional, and direct election of senators also violates constitutional law, which states senators shall be appointed by the state legislature.

fact :although these changes took places over time in america throughout many of the states until the passing of the 17th amendment, they were all unconstitutional, and any state that altered its form of government to this democratic form, should have been force out of the union.

however none of these states where forced out after altering their form of government, they were allowed to stay in the union and [violating constitutional law] even though states are allowing direct referendums TODAY, which still violate constitutional law.



View of the Constitution


The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." 1 It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.

 

[notquiteright]

while you presented some facts, you did not present all of them, and those facts you did not list hurt your argument, so lets look at these facts. that the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government in article 4 section 4 by this fact it means the federal government and all state governments must [have to a republican form of government] all state governments per their state constitution allow the people of a state to alter or abolish their form of government this right to alter or abolish allows the people of a state to institute [any form of government they wish]. if the people of a state government alters it form of government, to any other form other an a republican form, [that state must leave the union] a state must leave the union, because it is not operating under [Republican principles]. in the mid to late 1800's the progressive movement in america began, and through this movement the idea of initiative, state referendums and the idea of directly electing senators came into being under what is know as the "Oregon system". under constitutional law, a state in the union cannot have initiative, state referendums because because it is not a republican form of government, [direct referendums are direct democracy] and unconstitutional, and direct election of senators also violates constitutional law, which states senators shall be appointed by the state legislature. although these changes took places over time in america throughout many of the states until the passing of the 17th amendment, they were all unconstitutional, and any state that altered its form of government to this democratic form, should have been force out of the union. however none of these states where forced out after altering their form of government, they were allowed to stay in the union and [violating constitutional law] even though states are allowing direct referendums TODAY, which still violate constitutional law.

I don't see where allowing the people to directly elect their Senator violates the concept of a Republican form of government.

Most of the rest of your presentation appears to be your opinion as you fail to cite any source like you did for the first rather odd reference to a republican form of Government. You as a layman declare something unconstitutional when the Supreme Court did not, and the Supreme Court has a history of declaring state laws and state constitutional amendments in violation of the Federal one.

I have not seen where any state directly elected a Senator prior to the 17th amendment... primaries yes. I find two states used a 'popular advisory vote' to direct the state legislature on who to send to Congress prior to the 17th Amendment, but legally the legislature sent the men to Congress. You do see how your stance on Republic and 'violating' the Constitution is a strawman, the legal requirement was still met.

I'd say direct democracy would be we the people getting to vote on every bill before Congress- do we do that?

Where your argument falls apart is the Constitution never defines what is a Republican form of government (I can't find the word Republic anywhere in the Constitution) and does allow for the altering of that Document by amendment so more realistically the form of Government we use can be altered from whatever you think it was to whatever I think it is... Next the right to petition the Government to redress grievances seems to cover direct votes on the ballot since I see no Constitutional prohibition against it.

I'd say we have a REPRESENTATIVE form of government. The exact nature is a work in progress...

 

[Master PO]

I don't see where allowing the people to directly elect their Senator violates the concept of a Republican form of government.

until the 17th it is unconstitutional.



Most of the rest of your presentation appears to be your opinion as you fail to cite any source like you did for the first rather odd reference to a republican form of Government. You as a layman declare something unconstitutional when the Supreme Court did not, and the Supreme Court has a history of declaring state laws and state constitutional amendments in violation of the Federal one.

I have not seen where any state directly elected a Senator prior to the 17th amendment... primaries yes. I find two states used a 'popular advisory vote' to direct the state legislature on who to send to Congress prior to the 17th Amendment, but legally the legislature sent the men to Congress. You do see how your stance on Republic and 'violating' the Constitution is a strawman, the legal requirement was still met.

I'd say direct democracy would be we the people getting to vote on every bill before Congress- do we do that?

Where your argument falls apart is the Constitution never defines what is a Republican form of government (I can't find the word Republic anywhere in the Constitution) and does allow for the altering of that Document by amendment so more realistically the form of Government we use can be altered from whatever you think it was to whatever I think it is... Next the right to petition the Government to redress grievances seems to cover direct votes on the ballot since I see no Constitutional prohibition against it.

I'd say we have a REPRESENTATIVE form of government. The exact nature is a work in progress...

until the 17th amendment was passed it was unconstitutional for the people to directly elect senators...........yes or no?

no.. it is not my opinion,..it comes from "View of the Constitution" published in 1825 by Washington's DA for Pennsylvania William Rawle..the book was even used at West Point.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

The impetus for reform began as early as 1826 , when direct election of senators was first proposed. In the 1870s, voters sent a petition to the House of Representatives for a popular election. From 1893 to 1902, momentum increased considerably. Each year during that period, a constitutional amendment to elect senators by popular vote was proposed in Congress, but the Senate fiercely resisted change, despite the frequent vacancies and disputed election results. In the mid-1890s, the Populist party incorporated the direct election of senators into its party platform, although neither the Democrats nor the Republicans paid much notice at the time. In the early 1900s, one state initiated changes on its own. Oregon pioneered direct election and experimented with different measures over several years until it succeeded in 1907. Soon after, Nebraska followed suit and laid the foundation for other states to adopt measures reflecting the people's will. Senators who resisted reform had difficulty ignoring the growing support for direct election of senators

Increasingly, senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as twenty-nine states elected senators either as nominees of their party's primary or in a general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the new senators supported measures that argued for federal legislation, but in order to achieve reform, a constitutional amendment was required. In 1911, Senator Joseph Bristow from Kansas offered a resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment. The idea also enjoyed strong support from Senator William Borah of Idaho, himself a product of direct election. Eight southern senators and all Republican senators from New England, New York, and Pennsylvania opposed Senator Bristow's resolution. The Senate approved the resolution largely because of the senators who had been elected by state-initiated reforms, many of whom were serving their first term, and therefore may have been more willing to support direct election. After the Senate passed the amendment, which represented the culmination of decades of debate about the issue, the measure moved to the House of Representatives.


referendums...are "direct democracy" and unconstitutional because it is not part of a [republican form of government].......you cannot have referendums in republican forms of government.

democracy is a democratic form of government...with the people casting votes for their officials. a republican form of government is a form of government, with people casting a direct vote for 1 of their officials, and the people casting indirect votes for the other 2 of their officials.

REPRESENTATIVE form of government?.........both democracy and a republic are representive forms of government...however america is supposed to be by constitutional law a republican form...not a democratic form.

 

[apdst]

The Navy was. From Wikipedia:

Only in the sense that black sailors and white sailors had to serve on the same vessel. Black sailors were only allowed to serve as cooks and stewards, were restricted to certain parts of the boat, weren't allowed to handle weapons, quartered apart from white sailors.

 

[Master PO]

The President, at the time, purged the government of all black employees.

Woodrow Wilson, purged the federal government of blacks, he re- segregated the military, he was a racist, and he was also a PROGRESSIVE.

progressives in this period of time, advocated for the killing of people who served no purpose, the retarded, and those who did not contribute to society, they believed in eugenics.

 

[Master PO]

A Classical Republic, (Greek: πολιτεια; Latin: respublica) is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

The American Republic

The history of mixed government in America goes back to the chief founders of New England. The early Massachusetts government was predominantly aristocratic. John Cotton and John Winthrop had an aversion to democracy. The Puritan preachers strongly believed that Scriptures only approved monarchy and aristocracy. "At best, Winthrop and his friends believed in what they called 'a mixt aristocracy'". 24 (See section below on "Occurrences of the word".)

When the Articles of Confederation failed, a constitutional convention was convened to bring about a better form of federal government on 25 May 1787. Well schooled in the Classics, the convention members had a deep distrust of democracy. Governor Robert Morris of Pennsylvania believed that the Senate should be an aristocratic body composed of rich men holding office for life. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, declared that he "abhorred" democracy as "the worst of all political evils". Edmund Randolph, the governor of Virginia, believed that Virginia's Senate was designed as check against the tendencies of democracy. John Dickinson, another delegate, strongly urged that the United States Senate would be structured as nearly as possible to the House of Lords. 25 Finally, Alexander Hamilton wanted the American government to mirror the British government and also proposed that the Senate be styled along the same lines as the House of Lords. 26

Woodrow Wilson, in Division and Reunion (pg 12), wrote that "The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities..." 27 Professor John D. Hicks in his book on The Federal Union said "Such statements could be multiplied almost at will." 28

"All agreed that society was divided along class lines and the "'the most common and durable source of factions'" was "'the various and unequal distribution of property'", as Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10. The common philosophy accepted by most of the delegates was that of balanced government. They wanted to construct a national government in which no single interest would dominate the others. Since the men in Philadelphia represented groups alarmed by the tendencies of the agrarian interests to interfere with property, they were primarily concerned with balancing the government in the direction of protection for property and business."

Threefold structure

The tri-political concept of government and the tripartite form of mixed government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) can be seen in the United States Constitution.

The Presidency is the element of the monarchical office. The United States Senate is the representation of the aristocracy. 42 The House of Representatives is the element of democracy, representing the people. The Senate was originally intended to be the representative body of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, as well as a representation of state's interests, as a corporate entity, in the Federal Government. Madison said, "The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress." 29 Senators were appointed by their respective State legislatures and were not voted on by the people. The Senate was originally designed to check the House of Representatives and the Presidential office and be the "guardian of the constitution".

This is the original principle of a bicameral legislative house; i.e. the senate and the representatives. In Article III, sec 4, it states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." This means that all the state governments must have a bicameral house with the upper house being the seat of the aristocracy, not elected by the people.

Destruction of the upper house

Republics are converted to democracies by reformers and leaders who modify the constitution whereby the powers of the upper house, i.e. the Senate, are restricted and demoted.

Aristotle remarks that around 480 B.C., the Athenian polity was by slow stages growing into a democracy and about 462 B.C., the senate, the Council of the Areopagites, was stripped of its powers and the constitution relaxed turning the polity into a democracy.45

In modern times, "The abolition of the Senate, however, is a reform which American socialists demand in common with the Socialists of several countries. Thus we find the British Social Democratic Party, the Belgian Labor Party, the French Socialist Party and several other Socialist parties, demanding the abolition of the Senate, or, in England, the House of Lords". 41

In America, the XVII amendment in 1913 fundamentally changed the character of the American government. It starts by saying that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof,..."

It demolished the fundamental "checks and balances" that mark a republican form of government. The people elect both the Senators and the Representatives. In classical terminology and definition, the U.S. form of government was changed from a republic to a democracy.

In Britain, the House of Lords was also nullified when the law was changed making it possible that the Parliament (the assembly of the people) could overrule any veto of the House of Lords. The monarchy and the House of Lords are empty figureheads devoid of any real power. In classical terminology, Britain today is a democracy for the common people are the dominant factor.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Classical_definition_of_republic

 

[Master PO]

Mentality between republic and democracy

Aristotle does not use the word democracy and republic interchangeably; neither does Socrates in Plato's Republic.

Aristotle defines a republic as the rule of law. "...it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens, and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them;... the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern..." 21 Thomas Jefferson beseeched his countrymen to "bind men down from mischief by the chains of the constitution". 61

A democracy's mentality is that the people are sovereign and have become a law unto themselves wherefore the phrase vox populi, vox dei. The mentality of Despotism, as it can be seen in the Asian kings of the Pharoahs, Babylonians and Persians, Alexander the Great, his successors and the Roman Emperors starting with Julius Caesar, is that the king or Emperor makes the law so he is God. For the Spartan mindset, the Law, the golden mean, is to rule not men collectively or singly as the Spartan King advises Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae, to wit, "The point is that although they're free, they're not entirely free; their master is the law, and they're far more afraid of this than your men are of you. At any rate, they do whatever the law commands...". 38 A man's obedience, loyalty, and fidelity lie in the law and not in persons; the Spartan mindset being, "I'm obedient to the law but under no man". 64

Aristotle notices that a democracy puts the people above the law: "men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people's being sovereign even over the laws." 22

When the law loses respect, Aristotle says in V vii 7 that "constitutional government turns into a democracy". And in that situation, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle fear the possibility that "Tyranny, then arises from no other form of government than democracy." Then, democracies are no more than ochlocracies. In more recent times, Huey Long said that when fascism came to the United States it would call itself "democracy"

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Philosophy_of_mixed_government


Shift in meaning

Sometime and somehow, the word, republic lost its classical meaning and took on simply the meaning of self government. The revolutionaries of the French Revolution seeking to become "citizens" and run their own lives, gave themselves the title "Republicans".

Hence, since the French Revolution was a democratic movement, the words "democracy" and "republic" came to be intertwined. Republicanism in the French revolutionary meaning meant self-government with a constitution. In most books this is described as a democratic republic. It can also be described as constitutional democracy. Madison, in the Federalist Paper #39, uses the term "Republican branch" for the "House of Commons". In the twentieth century the word became even broader, with the French calling their parliamentary governments "Republics"; with the Spanish leftists calling their government a "Republic"; also with various autocratic governments (which would have been identified as monarchies in previous centuries) calling themselves "republics". For example, Mussolini's short-lived fascist state in northern Italy, which existed between 1943 and 1945, was called the "Italian Social Republic" (previous to the allied overthrow of his first regime, Fascist Italy had been a monarchy under king Victor Emmanuel III). Hitler once referred to the Third Reich as a "republic of the people" (eine völkische Republik), while Goebbels called it a "republican Fuhrer-state". 34 This because they thought themselves the full counterpart of the French Revolution and thus democratic. 63 Many other non-democratic governments also referred to their states as "republics".


What is a state

The Greeks defined differing governments by their dominant factor. Aristotle writes: "Now a constitution (Politeia) is the ordering of a state (Poleos) in respect of its various magistracies, and especially the magistracy that is supreme over all matters. For the government is everywhere supreme over the state and the constitution is the government. 3 Our customary designation for a monarchy that aims at the common advantage is 'kingship'; for a government of more than one yet only a few 'aristocracy', ...while when the multitude govern the state with a view to the common advantage, it is called by the name common to all the forms of constitution, 'constitutional government'. 4 Where a government has only a king, the dominant factor, it is called a monarchy. Where a government has only a few nobles ruling, the dominant factor, it is called an aristocracy." Where the people are the dominant factor it is called a democracy.

The Greek word for State is "Poleos". It denotes "society" in general. Aristotle writes "A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state". 5 This Greek word, "Politeia" is then named for every government that includes numerous classes of people as citizens and a written law, a constitution, that defines and delegates rights and responsibilities of those classes. A republic is one that does not have a dominant factor".

Hence, the phrase "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. A democracy is when the people are dominant and a republic is mixed government wherein there is no dominant element. Therefore to say a "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. The confusion lies in that the word "republic" is synonymous with "constitution". For that reason, it is better to say "constitutional democracy" other than "democratic republic".