lets start with republic in the days of the founders, a republic meant to the founders a " mixed government", of divided power.
Madison states in federalist 40, that the constitutional convention created a mixed government.
The Federalist No. 40 - On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:
THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
Polybius a Greek who is considered to be the creator of mixed government is referenced by Madison in the federalist 63
Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers
what is a mixed government.:
Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.
Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
in our American government, the founders did not create a system of government with the people electing the senate or the president, these are non democratic votes, while they did create a democratic vote for the house of representatives by the people.
our system of government is a republican FORM of government, with a single democratic element,..... the house of representatives.
a direct democracy or a representative democracy would be a democratic FORM.......and the founders hated democratic forms of government because they are very factious [full of special interest], that they chose a republican form over the democratic form in federalist 10 by Madison.
federalist 10 - The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
a republican form of government divided power into two half's, giving the states power of the senate and the people, power in the house, by having divided power no single power, the states or the people can become tyrannical because of that division.
back to the author who was G. Washington's DA for the state of PENN.,
in every state constitution the people have the RIGHT to abolish or alter their state government, in doing this they are able to form any type of government they chose, however it they are to remain in the union, they cant relinquish there republican form, if they do, they are not allowed to be a part of the union.
referendums, and initiatives on ballots are direct votes of the people, they are direct democracy, the founders are dead set against this because it allows for majority rule in law making, and the founders wanted to avoid that same sort of thing of the Athenians of Greece.
with referendums when have seen things like the creation of smoking bans on individual business, with the public determining the business's policy, this is in direct conflict with property rights.
Rawle--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.
RAWLE states that the people can expunge a representative form of government, and......which could create a monarchy.
the idea of a republican form of government over a democratic form is, that legislative law making decisions be made by more then 1 single entity with power, ...why?
because 1 person with all power will become a tyrant.
a few people with all power will become an oligarchy
and it you give the people, all power, they will become the "mob" and rule by majority over the 49%, taking away their liberty.
but by dividing power, no single power has all the power to become tyrannical
referendums and initiatives came into America under what is know as the Oregon system of the late 1800's...when America moved away from a republic to a more democratic form of government. and the 17th amendment.
I will admit, I am not a Constitutional scholar and when you start having duelling experts then you really loose me. The point is there are experts that disagree what a "Republican form of government" means. Once this happens, it either needs to be defined with an agreed on definition or just be prepared for discussions like are happening here.
where did the modern interpretation of republic come from.
the FRENCH.
when the French overthrew the monarchy in 1789, they called France a republic, however the movement of the people was a democratic one.
the term republic stuck, and today its means anything other then a monarchy...........IE..... threw out the monarchy.
I will admit, I am not a Constitutional scholar and when you start having duelling experts then you really loose me. The point is there are experts that disagree what a "Republican form of government" means. Once this happens, it either needs to be defined with an agreed on definition or just be prepared for discussions like are happening here.
Ok, what I said above still stands though. Until an actual definition is put into the Constitution, there will always be arguments over the definition.
the constitution by its very structure tells you its a republic of mixed government.
the house is elected by the people
senate by the state legislatures
president by the electoral college.
if America was created a democratic form.........why are not all 3 officials directly elected by the people ?
I am not debating if American is a Republic or not, just what exactly defines a Republic that Article 4 protects a states right to.
the article means that the federal government and state governments are to be republican in their form. this is a guarantee of the constitution.
but the people of every state...have the RIGHT to change their form of government........but if it were changed to a democratic form ,it must leave the union, Oregon when it created what is know has the Oregon system changed the WAY senators were elected, AND HOW LAW IS MADE ...violating constitutional law, that state should have been forced out of the union, but it was not......
the article means that the federal government and state governments are to be republican in their form. this is a guarantee of the constitution.
but the people of every state...have the RIGHT to change their form of government........but if it were changed to a democratic form ,it must leave the union, Oregon when it created what is know has the Oregon system changed the WAY senators were elected, AND HOW LAW IS MADE ...violating constitutional law, that state should have been forced out of the union, but it was not......
the united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
This says to me that the us will guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, not that the us requires a republican form of government from every state in this union.
he is just another expert who disagrees with different experts.
The Libertarian party, whoever they may be, take no responsibility for decades of their votes .
well what about james madsion, father of the constitution, creator of the bill of rights, when he says states have a republican form in federalist 39
Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.
Again, not a definitive definition of Republic.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
This says to me that the US will guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, not that the US requires a Republican Form of Government from every State in this Union.
sorry but that is not what you stated to which i answered you.....
i answered this statement from you.
again.... i produced the father of the Constitution saying states must be republican.
Madison - Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.
Ok, you are correct. I phrased that badly. I acknowledge that the US is set up to have a republican form of government. I was trying to state by the wording of article 4 it does not make it clear what exactly that is by stating from my reading of the article that is what it sounds like, the US only insurers a state can have a republican form of government. I have done enough reading of experts who disagree with me to know that my interpretation is wrong. However, a lot of those experts disagree with each other about what exactly a republican form of government is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?