"In order to from a more perfect union" was referring to the collection of states and colonies.

I hate it when liberals have no idea what they are talking about.

I hate it when republicans write crap and then spew it as the truth and then they get busted.

Perhaps all should re-read "Animal Farm," "1984" or "Road to Serfdom." The point is that pure democracy is nothing more than "mob rule," often by a misinformed population. "Lord of the Flies?" As a society we change with every generation but we don't evolve. The nature of mankind hasn't changed in recorded history. That is why the repeat of tyrannies from Ceasar to Milosevic. We see the hijacking of democracy, not in small ways but in larger and larger ways because of the misinformed public's mindset of looking for quick solutions or someone to blame. This has shown a total lack of critical thinking and despite more information ever accessible to the masses it is overwhelmed by opinion, lies and populist views not very well thought out.

This certainly has narrowed the ability to seek facts, like it or not, and make your own conclusions. Or just keep drinking the koolaid or become one likened to that of Stalin's useful idiots.

The answers are not that complex if we search the rich variety of tyrannies within our heart. Take a look at James 4:1-4. Governments are, for the most part, a necessary evil to regulate our basic drives, yet, being human, are doomed to fail, and they always do, to reinvent themselves, which is nothing but a shift of power into new hands. Religious or not, God allows all this theater to take place until we learn that only His rule pleases our contradictory hearts.

Seriously. Go take a civics class somewhere. Please. I beg you.

Republics tend to be characterized by reference to a charter/constitution or established laws. It would seem that in US history/thinking that this includes protection of individual rights.

Democracies stress equal participation and can be divided into several categories including "direct" where the people vote on everything, "representative" where the people vote for representatives who vote on the issues and "consensus".

With regards to individual rights, it is easy for me to see how a democracy could be a mobocracy however I think this would require the majority to be somewhat selfish/self centered and narrow-minded.

There is no guarantee that a republic would protect individual rights if they were not explicitly protected in the charter/constitution.

In summary, there are many flavours of democracy/republican government (each with advantages and disadvantages).

The US is a republic and a representative democracy. Australia is a representative democracy, but not a republic because our head of state is the queen. Most people in both countries get a say in how the country is governed, although when you add into the mix people who live in multiple disadvantaged situations and also the influence that rich and powerful individuals and corporations have, I wonder how "equal" it is.

So let's say, we cannot vote to remove the process of democracy and place a king, or take freedom from people. It constrains democracy so that the people cannot legally elect to destroy the general system by which we operate.

Secondly, and clearly, a republic is a form of democracy, just like whole wheat is a form of bread. Please read just a bit further into the meanings of the words. This is a classic example of the cart driving the horse. So sad to see such ignorance. no wonder our country is tanking.

The classic definition of a republic is simply a form of government whose head is not a monarch. Since the founding fathers were trying to break that method of government, it isn't surprising they were so determined to make sure their government was called a republic and behaved that way.

There is nothing in the definition of republic, outside of the American right wing, that says anything about the requirement of protections for the individual by some form of charter.

Like most developed countries, the USA has a form of democracy that is constrained by a constitution so that individual rights are protected. The USA may have been one of the first but it has been copied by countries that aren't republics.

I think this is simply a misinterpretation that comes from the need on the right to believe in American exceptionalism.

We need to take it back! If we aren't satisfied with how our present government is functioning, we have the right to overthrow it. There are reasons why our founders made the rules they way they did. They knew what would happen, and in some ways, we can say it's a test of human will and spirit.

How much are you willing to sacrifice so people won't be enslaved?

The "sheep" became placid and lazy deciding they would rather graze than watch the fence for wolves that were crossing the line. Now that the wolves have well crossed the line all the "sheep" are upset that the wolves have taken charge and now make most of the decisions; but what did the sheep do? They allowed it to happen because they would rather reap the benefits of the land instead of putting in their fair share of watching after the flock.

I am sure the same thing happened in Rome. Too much power and wealth made the people feel that they no longer needed to keep an eye on the people placed in charge. The people thought the country’s government could run itself, but then, without a watchful eye and swift hand the way the country was ruled evolved into something else, something that was not in the best interest of all the people, because all the people quit taking care of it. Instead, they thought it would always take care of them.

It is like a spoiled child that never has to do chores, when they grow up, they have no ethics in the realm of responsibility. Unfortunately this is what has become of many Americans.

Of course, no one but the wolves wants 200 wolves and 100 sheep deciding what’s for dinner. So, a republic has a rule that says “no sheep can be eaten for dinner.” But what is happening in this country today is not a democratic republic as it’s supposed to be. Rather it is ruled by a minority of politicians (wolves) who, even though elected by a majority, are still wolves, and there aren’t any sheep in the mix! Also, even though there is a rule that says “no sheep can be eaten for dinner,” the minority of wolves totally disregard the rule. On the other hand, the great argument against a pure democracy is that “it’s mob rule” and/or “it’s two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner.” Neither is true. The idea is that the majority will always consist of the exact same individuals, but this is ludicrous! The majority will constantly change with the issue, since it’s not always going to be about “what’s for dinner!”

The type of representative government put in place by the founders was done so because it was difficult, if not impossible, to get the majority of the people’s will because it was a big world, travel was difficult, news travelled slowly, education was limited and communication was stifled. However, since the beginning of the 20th century and especially since the latter part of that century, the world is now a small place, travel is easy, education is the norm, and communication is nearly instantaneous. There is, therefore, no longer any need for us to have these “representatives,” a minority, with the ultimate authority to theoretically speak for “we the people” (since the rules we live by are well established) deciding what is good for everyone.

Since more than 99 percent of homes have access to the internet, the issues should be decided directly by “we the people.” The only function of the representatives should be to discuss the issues, proposed by the people, and then formulate “bills” (that can actually be understood by the average citizen) that have alternative solutions that can then be voted on by the people! If nothing else, this would put an effective end to “lobbying” by special interest minorities and actually better reflect the will of the people. And the rules that have been in place for centuries will still protect the rights of the individuals as they were designed to do.

A republic holds those in power accountable to a set of rules, no matter how many wolves there are or how loudly they moan.

A republic allows us to vote for a representative permitting them to only have limited power of making the rules. Ultimately, a republic is "We the people" and we have the rights under the Constitution to over power our government's dictate. They are supposed to be working for us, not for their own means. So, as of today, our government (composed of lawyers and their mumbo jumbo) rule under a democracy making "We the People", our republic and our forefathers a mockery!

We need to take our country back from these money grubbing, self centered officials we call our government. God bless America! Let's take it back. And, Rome did fall under a democracy, that's why it fell. Let's not let this happen to us.

To "choose" - to choose which school to send your child to: public, religious or private?

To choose - ObamaCare, MyCare, or Othercare.

The benefits we want from a government, provided by our government, and supported by our taxes (and not so many).

"Majority rule" can and does remove or limit freedoms. But a democracy or republic that promotes "Choice" - that is a government by the people and for the people.

Individual choice is exercising freedom.

Thus the real problem.

It shouldn't matter in Congress whether your Republican or Democratic (Americas obsession for stereotyping). What matters is that they do what they are there to do: represent the people, not themselves

We owe is to ourselves as Americans to read the actual documents our forefathers left for us. Democracies in the past have always failed. Look at the Roman Empire. It became corrupt, lost its moral codes of conduct, and worse became arrogant of it's power. Hmmm, sounding kind of familiar?

The correct quote, by Benjamin Franklin is: "A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote".

In effect, that claim by government suggests that government is superior to the people, which they are not supposed to be, but, of course, we have permitted them to become.

The United States is not a democracy, and our Congress and Senate are bound to follow the constitution of the United States.

Most news media, school teachers, and even government officials do not know this. In 1776 Ben Franklin said we gave you a Republic. Thanks for reading. --Phil

Conservative Moderate