quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

Personally, I found the clip very informative.  I've been asking (including my daughters teachers *g*) what the real differences are between a democracy and a republic...and even they can only give vague answers. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The articles of Confederation failed because only the states, not the people had power.  Thus the founders created the Constitution to "form a more perfect union" and to correct the problems under the Articles.

quote:

  The USSR was a republic in name only just as many dictatorships claimed to be The Peoples Democratic Republic of whatever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

Yes Aneirin, the US and indeed the world was fortunate to have had the priviledge of men such as the founders of the USA. Their risk and sacrifice was great, their vision and intellect unmatched and their hope for greatness devine.

I often wonder if they would be proud or disappointed by how we stand now. Opinions I would assume are aplenty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Lets not forget constitutional ideals only extended to white people. Not that that has been different anywhere else. For that reason alone, it wasnt a true Republic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dnomyar

OK guys tell me what it would be like if you wrote the constitution. It is not the same as when it was written. There are always changes being made to it. What would your changes be???

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You definition of "republic" seems to lead one away from the most critical aspect of what a republic is, and by doing so, reinforce you contention that the rule of law isn't a cornerstone of what a republic actually is.

The reason that a small group of elected officials can govern and keep the interest of the people as the guiding principle - including minorities - is that there are laws which they must (should) follow.

Therefore, a "republic" without the rule of law is actually either a oligarchy or a democracy. 

Which is pretty much what the video said.

The Soviets were not republics, because there was no rule of law, regardless of what their legal documentation said.  The interests of the party were paramount, and were higher than any "law".

Therefore, no rule of law, and no republic.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Therefore, a "republic" without the rule of law is actually either a oligarchy or a democracy. 

The USSR was definitely a republic, it had many elected bodies which governed at many different levels, but did not have rule of law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen



An oligarchy is a situation where a small group wields power directly over a powerless majority. The British system when the house of lords dominated parliament was an oligarchy. It had the rule of law but not a republican government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No government system is automatically for or against the rule of law. Hammurabai was an absolute monarch with the unquestioned power of life and death over his subjects but he codified and by all accounts followed the first known legal system and in a literal sense invented the very concept of rule of law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No. A republic is and always has been simply a government where a larger group of citizens or equivalent chose a smaller group(s) to do the governing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Lets not forget constitutional ideals only extended to white people. Not that that has been different anywhere else. For that reason alone, it wasnt a true Republic.

No republic has ever extended the franchise to every one living under that state's rule. That doesn't change all those many republics into false republics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You seem not to understand that a republic requires two things, not one:

1. Election of political leaders who:
2. Must have a set of enforced system of rules (law) which take into account the rights of the electorate.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

So, all this confusion that exists to what is and what isn't a whatever, could it be that that suits those that run countries and seek to run countries ?

Also, should these different political engines have a clear definition and therefore not stray from thedefinition or should they be open to modification ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You seem not to understand that a republic requires two things, not one:

1. Election of political leaders who:
2. Must have a set of enforced system of rules (law) which take into account the rights of the electorate.

Firm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Rule of law is very nice but not diagnostic of a republic.

In fact, the Enlightenment had set the standard for republics, as well as in many cases for monarchies, in the next century. The most important principles established by the close of the Enlightenment were the rule of law, the requirement that governments reflect the self-interest of the people that were subject to that law, that governments act in the national interest, in ways which are understandable to the public at large, and that there be some means of self-determination. [emphasis added]

Some of the hardline totalitarianism lived on in the East, even after the Iron Curtain fell.[citation needed] Sometimes the full name of such republics can be deceptive: having "people's" or "democratic" in the name of a country can, in some cases bear no relation with the concepts of democracy (neither "representative" nor "direct") that grew in the West. In fact, the phrases "People's Republic" and/or "Democratic Republic" were part of the official titles of many Marxist states during the Cold War, including East Germany, North Korea, Mongolia, and today's People's Republic of China. It also should be clear that many of these "Eastern" type of republics fall outside a definition of a republic that supposes control over who is in power by the people at large – unless it is accepted that the preference the people displays for their leader is in all cases authentic. [emphasis added]

It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. (Hence supermajorites were required for approval of treaties and constitutional amendments). In a government made up as a constitutional republic, the Rule of Law and clearly defined constitutional principles dictate the actual administration of government.

quote:

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5]