Are we a republic or a democracy?

[VF500]

Since the time of Woodrow Wilson, socialists have liked to use the word democracy to describe this country, which it is not. Democracy can also be called Mob-ocracy or mob rule by the largest number of people assembled at the time a decision is made. Fifty percent plus one is all that's needed. There's also no protection for the rights of the minority. We are a Republic. We use elected individuals to represent us and make the decisions the big "WE" want, not mobs of individuals acting in theirown self interest.

In 1905 about 100 people got together in New York and organized what became known as the ISS or Intercollegiate Socialist Society. They were, obviously, a bunch of socialists. But in 1921, the violence in the USSR gave socialism a bad name so they changed their name to "The League of Democracy". Progressive socialists and communists have been changing their names since that time in an effort to stay hidden in the shadows from true "Republicans". Socialists ever since have been trying to blur the difference between a Republic and a Democracy to give themselves a more "touchy feely" sound and not like the bunch of Stalinists that they really are.

 

[CriticalThought]

...socialists have liked to use the word democracy to describe this country, which it is not.

How dare you imply that the GOP are socialists!

After all, they are the ones always talking about "the will of the people" and the importance of letting the people vote on social issues like same sex marriage. They are the ones who praise attacks on independent judiciary to kick out judges who make unpopular rulings and call any action by the courts that they don't like the work of "activist judges".

 

[Shooterman]

How dare you imply that the GOP are socialists!

After all, they are the ones always talking about "the will of the people" and the importance of letting the people vote on social issues like same sex marriage. They are the ones who praise attacks on independent judiciary to kick out judges who make unpopular rulings and call any action by the courts that they don't like the work of "activist judges".

First, we haven't been a republic since 1865. The republic died at Appomattox. Additional nails in the coffin have been driven in over the years when ever the government has imposed it's will unconstitutionally on the people, but has either made it's will stick by force or by bribery.

Secondly, we are plagued with the Socialist Party ( DIMS ) and the Socialist Lite Party. ( PUBS ) One is taking us into oblivion at 95 mph and the other at a more respectable 90 mph. Both are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We speak of the Federal Reserve creating money from thin air, but do not like to think of the SCOTUS creating law from thin air. Roe, Kelo, Brown vs Board of Education come to mind. That type of thing has basically gone on since Marshall and the Marbury decision.

 

[digsbe]

We are a democratic republic.

 

[CriticalThought]

...do not like to think of the SCOTUS creating law from thin air. Roe, Kelo, Brown vs Board of Education come to mind.

Please explain exactly how these rulings "created law". That is nothing but empty rhetoric.

That type of thing has basically gone on since Marshall and the Marbury decision.

Support for judicial review began in the Federalist papers.

Federalist Papers - Federalist, No. 78, And The Power Of The Judiciary - Constitution, Hamilton, People, Government, Judicial, and Review

All Marbury versus Madison did was confirm the intent of Hamilton and other founders by what they accorded in "judicial power" cited in Article III. In all of American history there has not been an effort to pass a Consittutional amendment restricting the powers of the judical branch and so having an independent judiciary has clearly been the will of the people.

 

[Your Star]

First, we haven't been a republic since 1865. The republic died at Appomattox.

No, the Republic was saved at Appomattox.

 

[Technocrat]

How dare you imply that the GOP are socialists!

After all, they are the ones always talking about "the will of the people" and the importance of letting the people vote on social issues like same sex marriage. They are the ones who praise attacks on independent judiciary to kick out judges who make unpopular rulings and call any action by the courts that they don't like the work of "activist judges".

You are mistaking the will of the people for mob rule. You are also forgetting what is supposed to be a sharp clear dividing line between the federal & state governments. The fact that the Federal Government in DC has been going feral & usurping the authority of the states for quite some time not withstanding, (that is a different topic).
At the federal level we are a representative republic. That is the reason the word democracy does not appear in The Constitution.
Yes, the elected officials in DC are supposed to make the big decisions. That does not mean they should just ignore the will of the people & do what they want. We hired them to do our business in the way we want it done. When they stray too far, we can and sometime do fire enough of them to change their path (as November showed). What they are supposed to remember is;
1. They work for us, not the other way around.
2. Their responsibilities & resulting authorities are supposed to be few & limited.

The bulk of authority is supposed to rest with the states. This established under the 10th amendment.
On the state level things are quite different. The people of the several states determine whether their government will follow more of a representative republican or democratic model. Each state allowed & encouraged to be unique in it's governing, as long as they do not violate the few & enumerated authorities of the federal government.
California is probably the most obvious example of the democratic method with it's willy-nilly ballot initiative system. It is possible to vote yes on two initiatives that totally cancel each other out should they both meet the requirements to get on the ballot.
Under our federal constitution things like Gay Marriage are to be decided at the the state level, not the federal. This is where the will of the people is the strongest. The current federal court battle that is being fought over Prop 8 should reaffirm this once it gets to SCOTUS.
As an example in my state, like California, the people voted to ban Gay Marriage, but by a much large margin. Our Constitution can only be amended by a majority vote of the people. Unlike California, such amendments must first pass by 2/3 majority in both houses of the state legislature, and the Governor does not have veto power on amendments. Your state will probably have a different method.

That is why the argument that issues like this should be decided by the people is not contradictory with our federal government being a republic, not a democracy. It is perfectly acceptable to have a patchwork of different laws regarding social issues through out the nation. It is in the original design.

Federal judges who "reinterpret" & twist the meaning of The Constitution beyond its original intent to make rulings that "fix social ills" as they see them (for either the left or the right) are activists, and such rulings are a violation of the oath they took to uphold & protect The Constitution. If the Constitution is found to be in need of updating it is the responsibility of the congress & the several state legislatures to do so.
The founders were wise enough to see that this would occasionally be necessity & provided two methods to do so.

Any public official who violates his oath of office, from The President all the way down to the local dogcatcher should be removed from his position. That includes federal judges. Sadly, we have voted for far too few senators who are willing to do so at the federal level.

 

[American]

You are mistaking the will of the people for mob rule. You are also forgetting what is supposed to be a sharp clear dividing line between the federal & state governments. The fact that the Federal Government in DC has been going feral & usurping the authority of the states for quite some time not withstanding, (that is a different topic).
At the federal level we are a representative republic. That is the reason the word democracy does not appear in The Constitution.
Yes, the elected officials in DC are supposed to make the big decisions. That does not mean they should just ignore the will of the people & do what they want. We hired them to do our business in the way we want it done. When they stray too far, we can and sometime do fire enough of them to change their path (as November showed). What they are supposed to remember is;
1. They work for us, not the other way around.
2. Their responsibilities & resulting authorities are supposed to be few & limited.

The bulk of authority is supposed to rest with the states. This established under the 10th amendment.
On the state level things are quite different. The people of the several states determine whether their government will follow more of a representative republican or democratic model. Each state allowed & encouraged to be unique in it's governing, as long as they do not violate the few & enumerated authorities of the federal government.
California is probably the most obvious example of the democratic method with it's willy-nilly ballot initiative system. It is possible to vote yes on two initiatives that totally cancel each other out should they both meet the requirements to get on the ballot.
Under our federal constitution things like Gay Marriage are to be decided at the the state level, not the federal. This is where the will of the people is the strongest. The current federal court battle that is being fought over Prop 8 should reaffirm this once it gets to SCOTUS.
As an example in my state, like California, the people voted to ban Gay Marriage, but by a much large margin. Our Constitution can only be amended by a majority vote of the people. Unlike California, such amendments must first pass by 2/3 majority in both houses of the state legislature, and the Governor does not have veto power on amendments. Your state will probably have a different method.

That is why he argument that issues like this should be decided by the people is not contradictory with our federal government being a republic, not a democracy. It is perfectly acceptable to have a patchwork of different laws regarding social issues through out the nation. It is in the original design.

Federal judges who "reinterpret" & twist the meaning of The Constitution beyond its original intent to make rulings that "fix social ills" as they see them (for either the left or the right) are activists, and such rulings are a violation of the oath they took to uphold & protect The Constitution. If the Constitution is found to be in need of updating it is the responsibility of the congress & the several state legislatures to do so.
The founders were wise enough to see that this would occasionally be necessity & provided two methods to do so.

Any public official who violates his oath of office, from The President all the way down to the local dogcatcher should be removed from his position. That includes federal judges. Sadly, we have voted for far too few senators who are willing to do so at the federal level.

This is completely correct, the US Constitution requires a republican form of govt in each state.

 

[samsmart]

Since the time of Woodrow Wilson, socialists have liked to use the word democracy to describe this country, which it is not. Democracy can also be called Mob-ocracy or mob rule by the largest number of people assembled at the time a decision is made. Fifty percent plus one is all that's needed. There's also no protection for the rights of the minority. We are a Republic. We use elected individuals to represent us and make the decisions the big "WE" want, not mobs of individuals acting in theirown self interest.

In 1905 about 100 people got together in New York and organized what became known as the ISS or Intercollegiate Socialist Society. They were, obviously, a bunch of socialists. But in 1921, the violence in the USSR gave socialism a bad name so they changed their name to "The League of Democracy". Progressive socialists and communists have been changing their names since that time in an effort to stay hidden in the shadows from true "Republicans". Socialists ever since have been trying to blur the difference between a Republic and a Democracy to give themselves a more "touchy feely" sound and not like the bunch of Stalinists that they really are.

sigh I hate having to constantly explain this whenever it comes up.

To be truthful, we are both a republic and a democracy.

Technically, a republic is any form of government that is non-monarchial in nature. The term was first used in Rennaissance Italy, most notably by Machiavelli, to describe government that were not monarchies, which was the most prevalent type of government known at that time.

Because the only definition of a republic be that the ruler be non-hereditary in nature, the types of republic can be quite varied. A republic can be a democracy, yes, but it could also be an oligarchial dictatorship or a plutocracy or even an anarchy. The only requisite for a republic be that the ruler cannot have inherited his position.

So just as you can have a dictatorial republic, you can also have a democratic republic. We have that type of government, as many functions of government are based around democracy. For example, we democratically elect the vast majority of our government officials, or have them appointed by government officals we elect. The system of the Electoral College we use to elected the President and the Vice President is a method of indirect democracy.

However, the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, lists a series of civil rights and civil liberties that no institution - not the people, and not government officials - can infringe upon. So while most aspects of government are decided in a directly democratic or indirectly democratic way, there are some things that not even those democratic process can inhibit, as they are protected by the Constitution.

So to answer the question that is the topic, the United States is, in fact, a constitutional democratic republic.

 

[Shooterman]

No, the Republic was saved at Appomattox.

Our republic was founded on a combination of a strong central government of very limited purposes, a total, if I recall correctly, of about 19. The other part of the equation were strong sovereign states that maintained all authority not given to the federal government. With the defeat of the Confederacy, that principle was destroyed as there were no more states with governments strong enough to oppose the federalist. With each succeeding year, the rights of the states have been eroded. We are just now beginning to see a resurgence in the concept of strong states rights. Where it will lead, who knows? We can hope it leads back to the constitutional principles as envisioned by the Founders. Time will tell.

 

[American]

This is completely correct, the US Constitution requires a republican form of govt in each state.

Darn, I meant "This is not completely correct...". sigh

 

[samsmart]

Our republic was founded on a combination of a strong central government of very limited purposes, a total, if I recall correctly, of about 19. The other part of the equation were strong sovereign states that maintained all authority not given to the federal government. With the defeat of the Confederacy, that principle was destroyed as there were no more states with governments strong enough to oppose the federalist. With each succeeding year, the rights of the states have been eroded. We are just now beginning to see a resurgence in the concept of strong states rights. Where it will lead, who knows? We can hope it leads back to the constitutional principles as envisioned by the Founders. Time will tell.

As long as states' rights aren't used as an excuse to institutionalize racism or infringe particular groups of their rights, I'm all for them.

Personally, I rather enjoy our governmental system being liquid. It allows it to be more adaptable, and the more adaptable a system the greater it's survivability.

 

[Slartibartfast]

We are a democratic republic.

I agree. The correct answer is both.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I've had a similar discussions with some communists on whether or not the USSR was really Communist.

Technically, the US is not a fully fledged democracy. We have laws that override a simple majority in a lot of cases, and our entire political system is based around not letting one group, including a simple majority of voters to control things. However, look at Communism. Most people think of central planning, totalitarianism, and government ownership, things that Marx didn't really call for. The textbook definition of "communism" does not perfectly fit the conditions of the Soviet Union, but the term does get the message across. So "communism" is generally used to describe these "state capitalist" regimes.

The same thing occurs with democracy. When people here it, they think of rule of law, free and fair elections, and civil liberties. A better term for our system would be "liberal democracy" or as previously mentioned, "democratic republic." However, "democracy" generally does get the message across.

BTW, I will agree that this nation should be recognized as one that has laws above voter majorities, and not everyone always does this.

 

[Technocrat]

Darn, I meant "This is not completely correct...". sigh

Please read more closely, I said "more of a representative republican or democratic model" not that state governments were not to be of republican form.
This distinction is why I gave two examples. A fine point I agree, but an important one.

California's system has far more democratic properties than say, Kansas. Does this clear up your impression?

 

[Technocrat]

I've had a similar discussions with some communists on whether or not the USSR was really Communist.

Technically, the US is not a fully fledged democracy. We have laws that override a simple majority in a lot of cases, and our entire political system is based around not letting one group, including a simple majority of voters to control things. However, look at Communism. Most people think of central planning, totalitarianism, and government ownership, things that Marx didn't really call for. The textbook definition of "communism" does not perfectly fit the conditions of the Soviet Union, but the term does get the message across. So "communism" is generally used to describe these "state capitalist" regimes.

The same thing occurs with democracy. When people here it, they think of rule of law, free and fair elections, and civil liberties. A better term for our system would be "liberal democracy" or as previously mentioned, "democratic republic." However, "democracy" generally does get the message across.

BTW, I will agree that this nation should be recognized as one that has laws above voter majorities, and not everyone always does this.

No, we are not any kind of democracy at the federal level, & were not intended to be. There is only one area of the federal government that is even linked to a 50%+1 popular vote democratic activity, the STATE elections of our federal officials. The president is still elected by the electoral congress, not the popular vote.

Despite the best efforts of many "progressives" over the last 100 years or so, we are still a representative republic, per our Constitution. Our Constitution still requires a super-majority in both houses of congress (or a super-majority of delegates to a Constitutional Convention) and ratification by a super-majority of state legislatures to be amended. As long as those safeguards are in place, we will not became a democracy

Changing what a lot of people call us does not change what we are, no matter how bad some people want it to be so.

BTW DA, not everyone thinks of "rule of law, free and fair elections, and civil liberties" when they hear democracy. Those of us who truly understand the meaning of the concept think of mob rule & instability.

Your parallel with Marxism falls apart when you remember the Soviets intended, promised & advertised a "Marxist" state. (That they were not able to deliver on that anymore than most of their other promises is beside the point, and the subject of another thread.)
Our founders did nothing of the sort in relation to democracy. Before the 20th century the federal government even taught military officers & enlisted men the difference between a democracy & a republic, along with the dangers of the former & advantages of the latter.

 

[spud_meister]

Techno, you are making the same mistake with the word republic that you are blaming others of doing with the democracy, as previously stated, a republic is simply a non-monarchical system of government, which makes it a very broad category. China is a republic, but the difference between it and the US is the level of democracy.

not everyone thinks of "rule of law, free and fair elections, and civil liberties" when they hear democracy. Those of us who truly understand the meaning of the concept think of mob rule & instability.

This statement of yours proves my point, you are choosing the definition of unadulterated democracy to argue the US is solely a republic, without realising that those of us who know the true definition of the concept of republicanism realise it's just a non-monarchical government.

 

[CriticalThought]

You are mistaking the will of the people for mob rule.

The "will of the people" is the US Constitution. A majority vote is always mob rule.

Federal judges who "reinterpret" & twist the meaning of The Constitution beyond its original intent to make rulings that "fix social ills" as they see them (for either the left or the right) are activists, and such rulings are a violation of the oath they took to uphold & protect The Constitution.

There is no such thing as an activist judge. Judges only have the power to strike down laws as unconsitutional. They cannot "reinterpret" or "twist" meaning. They can only argue why a law does not meet the standard to be considered Constitutional.

 

[Technocrat]

Techno, you are making the same mistake with the word republic that you are blaming others of doing with the democracy, as previously stated, a republic is simply a non-monarchical system of government, which makes it a very broad category. China is a republic, but the difference between it and the US is the level of democracy.

Not at all. While republics have existed in may forms (and still do), they are all based upon the rule of law, not the rule of men. This was true when the Romans established the first successful large republic. It is still true today.

The difference between us & the Chinese is not the level of democracy, but in the constitutional limits our founders set on the powers of our government. Had those limits not been put into our constitution, we very well could have devolved into a tyranny as bad as or worse than the one in China, without ever giving up the right to elect our leaders.

Do you realize that the Soviet Union (Democratically) elected its leaders? They were very proud of this & tried to use it to convince the useful idiots in the west that their system was really not all that different from ours. The fact the party controlled the elections & only allowed one candidate for each seat was beside the point. They all had to be voted into office. This did not make the Soviet Union a democracy either.

The founders, at the the Constitutional Convention, decided that a democracy, which some delegates proposed, would be too risky & voted specifically against establishing one. A monarchy was also suggested & discarded.

As I stated earlier, our federal government does not have any democratic (50%+1 popular vote) principles.
We also have set terms for our leaders. The parliamentary vote of no confidence is one of the cornerstones of the so called democracies in Europe. Yes, they come far closer to democracy than we do, but they are not true democracies either. They do not popularly elect their national leaders at all. They only get to vote for their Member of Parliament. The party with the most members elected chooses the Prime Minister.

This statement of yours proves my point, you are choosing the definition of unadulterated democracy to argue the US is solely a republic, without realising that those of us who know the true definition of the concept of republicanism realise it's just a non-monarchical government.

Problem is, that is not the true definition of a republic.

A republic is a government that is controlled by the rule of law, not the rule of men.
A democracy is a form of government that is controlled by the rule of men.

If we are a democracy, why did none of the founders, and none of the presidents before Woodrow Wilson call it one?

Our form of government did not change when he was elected. Neither did the definitions of democracy or republic.

 

[spud_meister]

Not at all. While republics have existed in may forms (and still do), they are all based upon the rule of law, not the rule of men. This was true when the Romans established the first successful large republic. It is still true today.

The difference between us & the Chinese is not the level of democracy, but in the constitutional limits our founders set on the powers of our government. Had those limits not been put into our constitution, we very well could have devolved into a tyranny as bad as or worse than the one in China, without ever giving up the right to elect our leaders.

Do you realize that the Soviet Union (Democratically) elected its leaders? They were very proud of this & tried to use it to convince the useful idiots in the west that their system was really not all that different from ours. The fact the party controlled the elections & only allowed one candidate for each seat was beside the point. They all had to be voted into office. This did not make the Soviet Union a democracy either.

The founders, at the the Constitutional Convention, decided that a democracy, which some delegates proposed, would be too risky & voted specifically against establishing one. A monarchy was also suggested & discarded.

As I stated earlier, our federal government does not have any democratic (50%+1 popular vote) principles.
We also have set terms for our leaders. The parliamentary vote of no confidence is one of the cornerstones of the so called democracies in Europe. Yes, they come far closer to democracy than we do, but they are not true democracies either. They do not popularly elect their national leaders at all. They only get to vote for their Member of Parliament. The party with the most members elected chooses the Prime Minister.

Ah, I see the problem here, your definition of democracy is one of direct democracy, rather than representative and liberal democracy, the fact that the poeple have a say in the elecion of the leaders of the country proves it is a democracy, yes, the powers of the majority are limited and set within bounds, but that does not negate the democractic process, nor the fact that the US is a democracy.

Problem is, that is not the true definition of a republic.

A republic is a government that is controlled by the rule of law, not the rule of men.
A democracy is a form of government that is controlled by the rule of men.

No, take my country for instance, we are not a republic, for the simple fact our head of state is not elected, rather it is the Queen of Australia, and the office is a hereditary one. A democracy is a country that elects it's leaders (most democratic countries do this via representative democracy), a republic is a country with a non-monarchical head of state.

If we are a democracy, why did none of the founders, and none of the presidents before Woodrow Wilson call it one?

Our form of government did not change when he was elected. Neither did the definitions of democracy or republic.

For the same reason the Democratic party was labelled the Democratic party, for the connotations of mob rule that go along with the word, but it is not the sole definition.

 

[Technocrat]

The "will of the people" is the US Constitution. A majority vote is always mob rule.

If you consider chosing our representatives mob rule, We do not have much common ground for discussion. That our elections are held on a fixed schedule, with fixed rules takes a lot of the mob element out of it.

There is no such thing as an activist judge. Judges only have the power to strike down laws as unconsitutional. They cannot "reinterpret" or "twist" meaning. They can only argue why a law does not meet the standard to be considered Constitutional.

In theory that should be true.
Sadly, there have been many decisions made by judges based not on what the constitution actually said, or what the author of whatever particular portion they were using intended, but instead some fanciful interpretation that only existed in their own imagination until they used it for their ruling. The ones who do this to are activists.
As an extreme example (and not an attempt to make this thread about abortion) before Roe vs Wade, there was no established "right" to privacy. Somehow we had muddled along without it, I guess there was just no one smart enough to see it until that decision.
The 4th amendment said our belongings, homes & papers were not able to be searched without warrant, not that they were private and inviolate. With probable cause they could be examined whether we agreed or not.

In that decision he court not only struck down all existing laws against abortion, it also laid down a set of rules that had to be followed in any subsequent legislation.
More than that, it established the precedent of a "right to privacy" that extends far beyond the original ruling.
This is far more than just "finding the law unconstitutional" & striking it down. This required a reinterpretation of the constitution to find meaning that did not exist before 1973.
There are even abortion supporters who are honest enough to admit this was a flawed decision, but it still has the power of law until it is struck down. It cannot be over-ruled by congress.
The saddest part is, in the last 100 years these kinds of rulings have become more and more common.

 

[Technocrat]

Ah, I see the problem here, your definition of democracy is one of direct democracy, rather than representative and liberal democracy, the fact that the poeple have a say in the elecion of the leaders of the country proves it is a democracy, yes, the powers of the majority are limited and set within bounds, but that does not negate the democractic process, nor the fact that the US is a democracy.

Your problem is an incomplete definition of a republic.
From Merrian Websterefinition of REPUBLIC
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

One of the things that keeps us from being a democracy is that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is rigid. The term "rigid" is used because the provisions are in a written document which cannot be legally changed with the as easily as or using the same method as ordinary laws.
The British Constitution, which is unwritten, can, on the other hand, be changed at will by act of Parliament.

No, take my country for instance, we are not a republic, for the simple fact our head of state is not elected, rather it is the Queen of Australia, and the office is a hereditary one. A democracy is a country that elects it's leaders (most democratic countries do this via representative democracy), a republic is a country with a non-monarchical head of state.

By your definition your country would not be a democracy either. Neither your Queen nor you Prime Minister are elected directly by the people.
The Queen's position is obviously heredity.
As I understand your system, the PM is chosen by the party (or coalition of parties) with the majority in Parliament. Isn't it correct that on your ballot, your vote is for the Member of Parliament for your district?

Again from Merriam Webster: Definition of DEMOCRACY
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Although the differences between a republic and a democracy may seem subtle, they are important.

The biggest of course is that in our Republic, an outcry of the people cannot bring about a Vote of No-Confidence and new elections. In your Democracy it can.

In the US, the process to amend our Constitution is tedious and difficult. This was deliberate. This is so that it cannot be changed hastily to appease an angry or discontent majority. While the process continues is debated, & possibly started, emotions can cool & saner heads will determine if it is truly necessary or just the product of an transient situation. As a result, far more amendments have been proposed than have been enacted or even sent to the states.

For the same reason the Democratic party was labelled the Democratic party, for the connotations of mob rule that go along with the word, but it is not the sole definition.

This sounds as if you believe all Presidents before Wilson and our founders were either moral cowards afraid of the connotations of the word democracy, or well meaning but ignorant of the political truth you possess.

Sorry, but that is just not the case. There was much bitter debate in the Constitutional Convention as to whether we should be a democracy or not.The democracy advocates lost the debate. The "Federalists" won the debate and our Federal Republic was formed and instituted through our Constitution.

The Democratic Party (who originally called themselves the Republican Party BTW) was founded by some of those same democracy advocates along with Thomas Jefferson, who while not at the convention (he was representing our nation in Paris at the time) vigorously supported that form of government.

The Federalist Party was formed by those who supported the current form of our Republic. They later dissolved over internal disputes & were replaced by the Whigs who were replaced by the modern Republican Party.

Wilson was just the first of many "progressive" presidents (of both major parties) who thought we should evolve toward a more democratic form of government.
The misrepresentation was repeated often enough that is has almost become a tradition, even with many who sincerely support our republican form of government.

That does not change the fact it is not true.

 

[CriticalThought]

If you consider chosing our representatives mob rule,

As I said, majority vote is always mob rule. It is 51% imposing its will on 49%.

We do not have much common ground for discussion. That our elections are held on a fixed schedule, with fixed rules takes a lot of the mob element out of it.

Exactly how does tha take the mob rule out of it?

...there was no established "right" to privacy.

9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Purpose: the government is not free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. Hence, right to privacy.

Furthermore, where does it say in the Constitution that it must be interpreted purely by original intent? Has America ever made any effort to pass laws or amendments restricting interpretation to original intent?

 

[Technocrat]

From Merrian Websterefinition

Dang nabbed typos &#*%#!

Merriam Webster Definition

 

[Technocrat]

(snip)
9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Purpose: the government is not free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. Hence, right to privacy.

You have just proved why original intent is so important. By your interpretation, any right you wanted, no matter how ludicrous could be implied. That was not the intent of the framers.

Furthermore, where does it say in the Constitution that it must be interpreted purely by original intent? Has America ever made any effort to pass laws or amendments restricting interpretation to original intent?

The founders thought it would be so obvious it would not need to be included. Several including Adams & Jefferson both lamented that fact that it was not included in their later years.

It has to my knowledge not gotten past introducing a resolution as yet. It is an increasingly popular idea on the right. Time will tell.