"The ideal of a constitutional republic is individual liberty. In this century, great strides have been made toward the goal of subverting our republic and transforming it into a democracy. The foremost tactic of the subverters is the subversion of “language” - by calling America a democracy, until people thoughtlessly accept the term and use the term. Totalitarians have obscured the real meanings and principles of the American government.” Dan Smoot.
So a Republic gives people rights that can't be infringed upon, and a pure democracy doesn't. Thank you, forefathers. For the constitution and the USA republic.
A representative government is a type of democracy. If you really want to upend democracy, the elected representatives would get their place by inheritance, not votes.
@@Skibbityboo0580The Founding Fathers woukd disagree. They were suspicious of democracies and drew up a constitution to reflect that. Democracy is never mentioned in the Constitution; republic, however, is.
@@countschad Still a representative democracy. They were suspicious of pure democracies, so we don't have that. We elect our reps through a democratic process. Please tell me you're not one of those people that think republican = republic therefore democracy bad because democrat = democracy.
America was founded on the principles of a Constitutional Republic which protects the individual from their representatives and mob rule. Our founders assumed that men would be virtuous and honor the Constitution. Lacking any enforcement mechanisms allows unscrupulous politicians to circumvent and violate the peoples contract which is what we have today. Simply put, a democracy is universal equality and a republic is individual liberty.
This subject confuses me (I didn't pay attention to anything but girls trucks in school). Do we want a democracy or a republic? I just hear democrats always chanting to the people that we're loosing our democracy, but that's good right?
@@claytoncoker6489 we aren't losing democracy. The US is not - and never has been a democracy. So what they are saying is factually false on both accounts. So no, we're not. Democracy also isn't inherently good. It's flawed. And not the best we got, despite arguments to the contrary.
The founders gave us the ability to tear down recreate a government that was out of control. Without an understanding of the Bill of Rights & our Constitution, we are handing our power away to criminals.
They did not assume men would be virtuous. They flat out said this would fail... and they put in safeguards and wrote about "what to do" when it does fail! They talked about it a lot too! Everyone seems to be unable to learn history despite having such great access to read the writing of the framers themselves!
Excelent video. In my opinion I think the US is a Republic rather than a representative democracy because its laws are focus on protecting the individual rights rather than the majority.
Yes but did you notice the people who are big on pushing the whole Republic thing, really want a democracy? Majority rule and the word minority is a dirty word to them.
@@tammydommel3039 With all due respect I disagree with that statement because a democracy can turn into the tyranny of the majority. In the case of the "minority" or labeling groups is against the rights of the individuals ,that enters into the realm of collectivism but that is another debate.
Dan Smoots take on this is highly recomended for viewing or listening to. He goes 1 step further and points out that the US system is a Constitutional Republic while explaining the dangers of a true democracy.
The USA is not a true democracy it is a representative democracy. The video explained how a true democracy is impractical. Did you not bother to watch it?
I tried to explain this to my sister who keeps referring to the United States as a democracy and why I am against a pure democracy. I shared this video with her.
@@tcaldwell1782 "the biggest lie when repeated gets believed" (attributed to Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister) That's why Democrats repeat the word so often, to reinforce the deception.
@josephmayfield945 If we were any kind of democracy, our constitution would tell us that. But the founders hated democracy and decided against it. That's why no form of the word democracy can be found in the constitution.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
Before Dwight D. Eisenhower became President "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" wasn't in the pledge of allegiance. He added it because of the Red Scare. Its a symbol of theocracy.
@@philosopher-2007 Okay, cool...You admit there's no evidence for any gods' existence. But there is a lot of evidence for evolution. The ToE is the best explanation for evolution accepted by about 99% of life science scientists, and evolution itself is a fact. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
I know I'm repeating many others before me here, but it must be said. Thank you for basic, straightforward educational materials without bias or agenda (other than education 🙂). Its nearly impossible to find this these days, and I REALLY respect your efforts and content!
Thank you so much! It really helps contribute to the motivation to continue making more videos when I know people are appreciating them. Thanks for watching!
@@IllustratetoEducate Except you're wrong. As I demonstrated with my comment, and historical sources. I didn't even get into the words, quotes, and writings of the Founding Fathers and the Framers. I didn't cite John Locke, William Blackstone, Montesquieu, Madison, Hamilton, Eldridge Gerry, and so many more. Not to mention the Anti-Federalists. You're putting out bad information that will continue to allow those seeking to subvert the beliefs, values, traditions, and the Constitutional Rule of Law, and pervert it into something it was never meant to be.
The Framers, and Founders most certainly did not use "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably. In Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution it states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,". The Framers and Founders were fearful of democracies. They knew exactly what they were. " Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” James Madison Federalist 10 and 51. Also, the Founding Fathers and Framers studied history. From Ancient Greece with Plato's Republic, Aristotle, Polybius, and more. They knew full well the meaning of a democracy or a republic. Each member of the House is elected by popular vote in their respective congressional districts, but Americans don't get to vote on federal laws. Not a democracy. Originally members of the US Senate were appointed by their respective state legislatures. Not a democracy. The President of the United States is not elected by popular vote but by the Electoral College. Meaning when you vote you aren't voting for the president you're voting for the electors of the party of the president in your state that have vowed to vote for the candidate of that party. Not a democracy. If people knew more about the differences, and histories between democracies, and republics, especially the Republic of these United States they wouldn't carelessly, and unthinkingly throw about the word democracy and attempt to claim that the United States of America is one> It was never meant to be one, or should be made one. Democracies always without fail degenerate into tyrannies, and dictatorships and everyone suffers. Lastly, not once will you find the word Democracy, democracy, or democratic in the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress October 14th, 1774, The Articles of Association October 20th, 1774, The Declaration of Independence July 4th, 1776, The Articles of Confederation November 15th, 1777, The US Constitution September 17th, 1787, The Bill of Rights December 15th, 1791. But in your infinite wisdom and knowledge of politics, history, and law know more than they that created this nation, and you know more about what they thought, wrote, and spoke than they themselves. Try again.
Dam their is someone who is awake, we hear both partys speaking of america the true democracy. Even putin saying we are. Horse shit. Democratic process and democracy are not same. Thats what I got from reading.
You are SPOT ON! I am so glad there was someone here a year before me to call out the lies in this video! Thank you for being an informed American! We are in very short supply!
The United States is both a federal constitutional representative republic and federal constitutional representative democracy. It is irrelevant that the word democracy isn't in the constitution. A republic is simply a government without a monarch.
Bros opinion is so oddly strong that had to chant in the UA-cam comment section without using all caps, but using a capital only after every “ !“ but only one letter of course!
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
@@IllustratetoEducate 3:05 You were wrong here. The constitution does not allow interpretation such as "2nd Amendment only covers muskets" or "You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater". Both of these interpretations are unconstitutional because "interpretations" are inherently unconstitutional they always seek to limit and not expand. The founders knew technology would evolve so they were intentionally vague in their wording. The constitution only allows added amendments that do not contradict existing ones assuming a significant vote will approve one.
A Constitutional Republic is a Democracy, they mean the same thing. www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-108hdoc94/pdf/CDOC-108hdoc94.pdf
We are a Constitutional Republic. Ruled by the Constitution which limits govt. Democracy and Republic are competing political ideologies Representative democracy is a worse idea than a democracy. It’s easier to persuade 151 of 300 elected representatives to support legislation that is not in the public’s interest, than it is to get 165 million voters to support legislation that is not in the interest of the general public Just because we elect representatives doesn’t magically transform America into a democracy
Unbiased? He lies in the video. Kratos is "strength, power" in Greek... NOT "rule". You can look this up... right? Or are you that incapable that you will just believe anything they say on the internet despite the fact you can look up greek words and their meanings online?
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
You have to pay to live, die, travel, provide for your family and self. Go fish with out a license in a God made body of water or hunt on public paid forest (taxes paid for) if you get caught see what happens..? Court dates, fines, BS. What happen to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? You never even truly own your house/land -property taxes are rent, stop paying and they take your land. Same with car and registration. Right to travel is freedom. Freedom to move. Sounds like majority rule. Under common law, who did I hurt by getting 3 fish out of a natural body of water to feed my family? Pulled over for no seat belt? Where is the crime? No crime. Just majority rule making regulations and codes to follow.
@@chandelier6811 No. Republic and Democracy are different things, despite a federal department of education trying to conflate the two. We are a Constitutional Republic with democratic elections. Notice, democratic is an adjective, not a noun. In a republic, the government is not your ruler. It is delegated specific powers. Even if the majority wants to do some things they cannot if the charter (Constitution) did not give the government those powers. This is significantly different than a democracy or representative democracy where the majority can simply vote themselves the power to do what they want.
@@jameeztherandomguy5418 Close but you're missing a very important nuance. A republic delegates only a specific list of powers to the government. If majority opinion wants to do something NOT delegated to the government, then too bad, the majority does not have that power. This is often ignored by those who wish to conflate a republic and a democracy as being the same thing, but they are not.
But not really. If enough people WANT something they can vote for the leaders who will get it done. Period. Sure, it makes it harder for the majority to overcome the minority, but by no means is it impossible.
The biggest flaw in the US constitution is the fact that any sitting government can revoke an amendment, like was done in the 1930s that banned alcohol and tobacco One government can make or revoke a federal amendment The Australians have a great system where NO CONSTITUTIONAL change can occur without a vote on the very issue of consirutional change from the people whether it be in a mail in Plebesite or more commonly a Referendum
Excellent breakdown of the differences! One thing to add is republics also allow the isolation of certain public things that can harm the public at large if left unrestricted. In America's case, we took the Monarchy (Executive branch), Parliament (Legislative Branch), and East-India Trading Company (Corporations) and isolated them together; so all Constitutionally created things, such as the United States (Washington D.C) and its Laws that pass will not effect the Freedom(s) that Americans have by Right. Thus, limiting and restricting the Republic's power to only Persons (Titles or Corporations) they create, and all who bear those Persons.
You did fine till 2:35 when you went off the rails. Also, though many of the representatives at the convention were as ignorant about the form of government being proposed as you appear to be, the leadership, Madison, Franklin, Jefferson (in France but still involved) knew exactly what they were about. We have a representative REPUBLIC. ALL of the founding Fathers deeply distrusted a democracy. Additionally, all the previous democratic experiments had failed miserably! Madison,et al, didn't want to repeat that mistake. Much of what inspired the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution was greatly influenced by the writings of Thomas Payne and Francis Bacon. When asked what kind of government had been established, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it!" Many of our states are making serious errors by turning their governments into Democracies. California is a good example of this type of mob rule. It's a disaster, and the state is coming apart at the seams as a result.
In a Democracy you get to vote . Example 3 Wolves and one Sheep and you get to vote "Whats for Dinner " but in a Republic you also get to vote what's for dinner but minority Rights are Protected.. think about it.
How are they protected? I’m a bit confused. Because if a republic has rights that protect the minority, what if the majority just elect leaders to take away those rights?? I mean we see that with the 2nd amendment all the time right? It’s a right that’s is always being infringed upon because the majority votes in people that infringe on it. I really am trying to understand not argue lol
3:37 just learned this, Judicial Review is not a constitutionally mandated thing or even named in the constitution. Judicial Review comes from the Case of Marbury V Madison
Who knew there were so many constitutional scholars and experts on government in the comment section? This was a good video explanation and I use it to help explain the difference to my students. Well done.
Your illustrations created to show what you are speaking about worked very well. Indeed your video is concise and easy to understand. I greatly appreciate your efforts. - Peter age 74
@roryvance3694 Yes they are mutually exclusive. You can’t have a republic and a democracy at the same time. Just because we elect our representatives does not mean we are a democracy. A republic is a form of representative government elected or not. A democracy is the rule of the majority (mob) without any laws to protect the minority.
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk Incorrect. You would have failed my Freshman American Politics course test on this. Per Robert Dahl, the foremost political theorist in 100 years (was chair of Yale's Political Science department and former head of the APSA if you dont know what that is..trust me you are out of your depth), he notes three common traits of a modern democracy. 1. A free and fair elections 2. no significant barriers for the citizens to participate politically (like free speech , free press and assembly ) 3. 2 or more viable political parties . All those qualify as democracy. I would argue we were not a democracy until 1964-5. He notes that 'republic" and liberal democracy are used interchangeably in the modern world and that the framers of the Constitution dislike of the term "democracy" was its association with Athenian democracy , also known as "direct democracy". Now a modern Republic simply has one group of people governing in the name of its citizenry and ultimately sovreignity rests in the citizens, however that group is selected. So ..the US, both democracy and republic. The UK democracy without republic (sovereignity rests in the monarch) and the PRC is republic without democracy. North Korea is neither a republic nor a democracy. I suggest reading Dahl's " A Preface to Democratic theory" or "Polyarchy" , as pretty much every grad student in poli sci has to read one of those two
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk There are countries all over the world that operate as two forms of government. The US is one of them. A democracy gains legitimacy when it has a constitution that guarantees the rights of the individual. A republic, at its most basic level, has nothing to do with individual liberty.
Finally people are getting this out to educate. I have been screaming over and over on every social site commenting posts where people say what is good or not good for our democracy. My comments always say "WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY"! Thank you for the video. I will share this every where. People need to learn what generation x and before all learned by the 7th grade. We need the about Americas history and the constitution taught in our schools like they used to be. I do think that is far more important than your pronouns or how many genders there are (God save us all). Again, Thanks for the video.
Read these and you'll realize how Democracy was included www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-108hdoc94/pdf/CDOC-108hdoc94.pdf
Yes, we use democratic processes, but, that makes democratic an adjective, not a noun, which is a significant difference. This linguistic trick is being used to usurp more power to the government without ratifying amendments they know they can't pass.
This is a nice simple approach to understanding concepts that shift as all definitions of word do. I do feel that the role of the individual voter , which is not required in a republic, deserves to be noted as a critical and essential foundation of United States democracy. "Government of, by and for the People "requires ongoing direct input by the citizenry in addition to electing representatives to act on our behalf. A functioning democracy is designed to protect the majority from minority rule.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Benjamin Franklin So in a democracy, if the majority is not moral, the laws will not be, either. This is precisely why the US is a republic instead.
We're a republic and democracy but NOT a monarchy. We rule by the people who elect rep. Who vote for them. They have ability to vote them out. Taking that away makes us a dictatorship. We can't go that route where only one man makes our decisions for us!
The Constitution. The government is only given an explicit list of powers. If the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say the government is delegated the authority to do something, then it does NOT have that power. The government is currently violating this in MANY ways, but because most people are ignorant and/or apathetic about politics, we have not held them accountable to being Constitutionally limited.
It's a hybrid of democracy and republic. You should be suspicious of why Republican talk so much about this subject. The only reason why the Republican party resurfaced this debate is not because they care about you and me when they talk about "minorities", but because the elites, the donors that pay them want full control of the country and to do that they need overwhelming power over all of us.
Not, necessarily. A republic is governed by laws, not the whims of the majority. Any voting by the people must adhere to the already established laws. In a republic individual rights are sovereign and private property is protected. The majority can’t just decide to take your bicycle. It is yours, you own it they can’t take it away from you.
Because the majority is ignorant of the truth and they readily believe in the lies, some of which are peddled by this very video! THAT is why they are getting played pretty badly. The framers openly admitted that "Republics" are very susceptible to "foreign influences" which is why the USA was "Isolationist" for the first Century and 1/2. But the world needed to get the USA out of that so WW1 & 2 were started. Ever since WW2 end... USA became the very evil it resisted!
Personally what I get from this is that a republic uses many aspects of democracy but has more representation for under represented groups. One thing I notice however is that the democracy and republic have both the capacity to be good or bad depending on the context. A minority group could have massive advantages over other groups like wealth and power despite being a minority by numbers. But the voting majority could completely stall and even deflect meaningful and objectively good policy change at the same time due to bias.
No. A republic makes a list of powers the people give to the government. This is how people are protected from the majority. You simply don't give the government the power to hurt others. The only thing "democratic" about a republic is if they use democratic elections to elect their representatives. In this case, "democratic" is an adjective for the elections, not an adjective of the form of government and not a noun like democracy. They are different things. Moreover, "disadvantage" in this context is only relevant to THE LAWS. Everyone must be treated equally by THE LAW. It is actually IMMORAL to expect equal advantage or outcomes. Those require a dictator with a finger on the scales, which means some people WILL be abused for the benefit of others. Most things should NEVER be subject to "policy", no matter how much you think the outcome might be better. This violates freedom and opens the doors to tyrants.
I just want to point out that constitution does not grant power to overturn laws which is called Judicial Review SCOTUS granted themselves that doctrine in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison
What is the Greek words of democracy? The word democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", meaning people, and "kratos" meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as "power of the people": a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.
The republic definition you use is with a constitution attached, and could, in many ways, be considered a representative democracy, as democracy mostly involves the rule of the people in some way, shape, or form.
The nuance you are missing is the inalienable rights. The "rule of law" means the laws are above even the government. The law is the ruler. And the supreme law is the Constitution, which limits the government to explicitly listed powers, preventing the government from enacting laws at the whim of a temporary majority outside the scope of the delegated authority in the Constitution. The elected representatives cannot legalize murder, theft, etc, no matter the majority opinion/vote because it is not delegated the authority to legislate these by the Constitution. This is how minority rights are protected and why it is significantly different than a democracy, where majority opinion rules absolute.
Most often a democracy is just a type of republic, but a republic is not necessarily a type of democracy. Venice and early American times were essentially aristocratic republics, and the process of developing mass democracy has only made things worse and has only made the regime more powerful, because people have been stup1d enough to believe that casting a ballot gives them any real choice, or can somehow hold people accountable while you give them special powers to do things that nobody else has the right to do, while people are muddied so much in their thought process to actually believe that they somehow consented to tyrannical acts by the regime in any meaningful way. Of course it’s even worse than that because most real power in practice is held by unelected even less accountable bureaucrats, bankers, and corporations while being able to grift off of the illusion of choice through elections
We're a federal constitutional representative democracy AND a federal constitutional republic. Constitutional: Our system of government is considered constitutional, because the power exercised by the people and their representatives is bound by the constitution and the broader rule of law. Federal: Our government is also a federal system, since power is shared between a national government, representing the entire populace, and regional and local governments. We exercise our political power in a different way: by voting in elections to choose our representatives. That’s representative democracy. The Constitution does not use the term “democracy.” It’s true. But John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Marshall all used the word. These scholars understood representative democracy - the American variety - to be democracy all the same. John Adams referred to the US as a representative democracy in 1794 in "The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, volume 6" on page 19. "No determinations are carried, it is true, in a simple or representative democracy, but by consent of the majority of the people or their representatives." Thomas Jefferson referred to the US as a representative democracy in his "Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies" in Letter CXXIL to Mr. Wendover on March 13th, 1815: "I consider the war, with him, as 'made on good advice,' inasmuch, as it as exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy, compared with the misrule of Kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural rights of expatriations, and of a common property in the ocean, and raised us to that grace in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen soldiers, by land and by sea, the wisdom of our institutions and their observance of justice, entitled us in the eyes to in the eyes of the world." In addition, Noah Webster in 1785, and St. George Tucker in 1803 edition of Blackstone referred to the US as a representative democracy, and James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by referring to the 3 forms of government as "monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical." He states: "Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE…." Sir William Blackstone, who was much read and admired by the framers, likewise used "democracy" to include republics: "Baron Montesquieu lays it down, that luxury is necessary in monarchies, as in France; but ruinous to democracies, as in Holland. With regard therefore to England, whose government is compounded of both species, it may still be a dubious question, how far private luxury is a public evil …." Holland was of course a republic, and England was compounded of monarchy and government by elected representatives; Blackstone was thus labeling such government by elected representatives as a form of "democrac[y]." Chief Justice John Marshall defended the Constitution in the convention by describing it as implementing "democracy" (as opposed to "despotism"): "I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom." So why does the word democracy not appear in the US constitution, Federalist Papers, etc.? It's because the framers couldn't put both democracy and republic in the same sentence to describe the nation. They needed a word that defined the US states coming together to form a nation. A republic was better described the autonomous nature of each state coming together. However, democracy is the lifeblood of the American Republic and the fact that the word democracy doesn't appear in the constitution or the Federalist Papers doesn't negate the words of the framers as noted above. We have to push back against the claim that we're not a democracy because it has sinister motives. What these people really want is an autocratic nation run by a demagogue.
Welcome aboard! I'm glad you found the video to be helpful. There are over 120+ videos to check out. And if you have any ideas for new videos, just let me know.
The definition of democracy provided is wrong or incomplete. Democracy is not strictly defined as a direct or Athenian democracy. There are other forms of democracy. The video does a disservice to the topic.
@@Mike-ne8eb LMAO! The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. We *have* democracy; we are not *a* democracy. Our Founding Fathers rejected democracy as mob rule (as they should have). Nowhere in the Constitution or other founding documents will you find the word democracy. Article IV Section 4 of our Constitution guarantees all states in the Union a Republican form of government. We are a Republic. A direct democracy is for universal equality. A Republic is for individual liberty. In a direct democracy, we the people would vote for/against laws. In a Republic, our elected representatives vote for/against laws. We are a Republic whether you like it or not. The mere fact you don't know that speaks volumes about your education (or lack thereof).
@@anneharle2644 John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did Sr. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted. Chief Justice John Marshall-who helped lead the fight in the Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution-likewise defended the Constitution in that convention thus: I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom. James Wilson, Supreme Court justice at Constitutional Convention referred to the constitution as "democratical" when compared to the "monarchical and aristocratical" forms of government: "Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE…" Thomas Jefferson referred to the United States as a representative democracy in his letter to Mr. Peter H. Wendover in March of 1815. Monticello Mar. 13. 15. Sir Your favor of Jan. 30. was recieved after long delay on the road, and I have to thank you for the volume of discourses which you have been so kind as to send me. I have gone over them with great satisfaction, and concur with the able preacher in his estimate of the character of the belligerents in our late war, and lawfulness of defensive war. I consider the war, with him, as ‘made on good advice,’ that is, for just causes, and it’s dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of kings; has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural right of expatriation, and of a common property in the ocean, and raised us to that grade in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen-souldiers, by land and by sea, the wisdom of our institutions and their observance of justice entitled us to in the eyes of the world
@@anneharle2644 The United States is both a federal constitutional representative republic and federal constitutional representative democracy. It is irrelevant that the word democracy isn't in the constitution. A republic is simply a government without a monarch.
To put it short a republic is still a democracy but has restriction to protect minorities (ethnicity,political belief) give the minority voice,power and say about governance.
Not really. Both Russia and China are republics, but not democracies. And saying that they protect minorities and political opponents is a lie. America is both a democracy and a republic.
“Is the US a republic or a democracy?” It is neither. It is an aristocratic oligarchy where a minority of wealthy people rule. To answer the question, is it a democracy or a republic, it is necessary to first determine who rules. If your answer was “the people rule” this is incorrect. The people do not rule in either a republic or a democracy. For that you would need to be a sortition. Only with universal suffrage and sortition will the government be a proportional, representative democracy.
The protections of the minority come from the majority support though. Many issues in our country weren't even referred to the Constitution until there was pressure to. Not to mention our Constitution informed our Republic, which in it, enshrines many democratic rights, from voting, to rights of a jury. As you said, a Representative Democracy feels the most accurate.
As you point out, a republic is necessarily democratic, but a democracy is not necessarily a republic. Therein lies the confusion. The "argument" (if you even want to call it that) seems to be strictly semantic. The republic is inherently democratic in that it takes the premise of inclusive participation, by the people, for the people and adds safeguards as a hedge against the dangers of excess such as mob rule. To argue this point seems every bit as absurd as claiming that a piece of steak is not meat because, well, it's steak, not meat dammit! Semantics.
Can anyone explain to me why Democracy always devolves into Tyranny? I'm not challenging the notion but rather trying to learn and wrap my head around it so I'm not just parroting talking points. Thank you!
Excellent video - Seems like we just need a 'Chartered Democracy' then. Whereby people can make decisions for themselves instead of [lobby bought] Representatives. But there is a Constitution in place to ensure no laws that harm a certain minority group can ever be passed - Human Rights basically. ?
No, Democracy would be WORSE. A democracy, the majority can tell you what to do on anything the majority decides to. The point of a republic is to make sure the government CANNOT tell you what to do in protected things. Our problem is too many people who are IGNORANT of how this works so they don't get mad when our government violates the limits placed on it by the Constitution, or the ones who WILLINGLY ignore it because they REALLY think they should be able to tell you what to do.
Are we a Democracy or a Constitutional Republic? We are neither. We are democratic but not a democracy. Just having elections doesnt make a country a Democracy anymore than having churches makes it a theocracy, or have technology makes it a technocracy. In fact there is only one office in the United states that is filled by National vote, and it has never been by National popular vote. The supreme court and bureaucrats have destroyed any notion that our country operates according to a Constitution. Most rules we have to follow aren't created by vote or even representatives of the people, so we aren't a republic either. We are a bureaucracy. We are supposed to be a Democratic Constitutional Republic but we aren't.
This is incorrect. America is a republic. The word democracy is no where in the constitution, bill of rights, declaration, or anywhere in the federalists. To say that democracy was not well defined is extremely ignorant and pompous.
@@IllustratetoEducate Respectfully, I've also learned that the word "Democracy" isn't in the u.s. constitution, bill of rights & the rest on purpose bc the founding fathers of america HATED Democracy & what it stood for ultimately. However, they did put the word "republic" in these important documents & clearly defined them. My understanding is the Bankers injected the term Democracy into our lives to push their power on the world. Notice I used lower case letters to describe the republic? The strawman is a powerful tool used by the elite bankers. I got this from Google: Is Constitution and republic the same? In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority. Also: By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Reading this tells me clearly that a republic & a Democracy are absolutely not the same & should not be used interchangeably.
President Woodrow Wilson, a college professor and president, gov of New Jersey, repeatedly said the entry of the US to fight in WWI was to, “Keep the World Safe for Democracy.”
The difference between the ancient and modern concept of democracy - as you said the tyranyy of majority is the ancient concept that's the reason many political thinkers opposed it, the modern concept is more or less imbibed the republican concept too into it, thus we can use them interchangeably .
The US is a Constitutional Republic of states with states rights by way of a 10th Amendment. Article IV Section 4 of that Constitution says, "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." The words democracy and federal are not found in the US Constitution. You fail miserably to note that a democracy is centralized as a federal system with a strong central government while a pure republic is decentralized with a weak central government governed by the states. The US is NOT a democracy. Our US Constitutional Republic has been unlawfully/unconstitutionally perverted by democrats and federalists from its original intent of a pure republic. We have not been able to keep our republic as Franklin stipulated below. “A republic, if you can keep it.” --Benjamin Franklin's response to Elizabeth Willing Powel's question: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"; September 17, 1787
The Framers of the Constitution were vehemently opposed to democracy. They had a classical education and they knew that “democracy” means people power, direct participation of the people in deliberation and decision-making in the making of decisions concerning common public affairs. The Framers were all wealthy insiders. They were concerned for the defense of the propertied interests of the wealthy. As John Jay put it, “the affairs of the country should be controlled by the people who own it.” They were obvious elitists. Their goal in creation of the Constitution was to put up roadblocks to prevent a mass based democratic movement from gaining control of the government. Right wingers use the slur “mob rule” to refer to direct control over public affairs by the masses but that just tells us they want the rich to stay in control of the country and continue dictating to everyone else. Isn't it time to change this republic to something better? To end bribe taking representatives acting against the will of the People? We now have the technology to become a direct democracy. So Let's Do It.
I wouldn't want the masses to directly control the policy-making process of the nation, particularly because of how uneducated and idiotic political ideas are shared like wildfire on social medias
Except the United States is one of the few places in the world where people around come here for opportunities. Many immigrants like my grandparents were very poor. Within a generation or two much better off. People aren't trying to break out of this country yet. But they are still trying to break in. This is not at all in line with your summation of our country. You're saying the founders and the documents are corrupt, which is Anti-american.
There is no perfect, because too many things are trade-offs. If you don't have freedom, eventually you will have tyranny, even if it's on a small scale. If you do have freedom, you will have to accept things and/or people you do not like having freedom also. Should someone be allowed to be racist? If not, then you do not have freedom. If you have freedom, the laws do not stop racist people from being racist. They still cannot violate the rights of others, but they can be very offensive and say or do emotionally hurtful things, etc. So it's all trade-offs. "Best" then will depend on your values. Is it worth allowing your government to RULE you and take away your freedom when they deem they know better than you just so someone is not allowed to be racist? I'll take freedom every time, because with freedom also comes the right for me to choose to never associate with racists even if I can't stop them and the ability to speak MY conscience to denounce them.
@@RJ-re3eythat’s an odd way of thinking about it. Things change all the time. Like Fanta was created by Nazi Germany, that doesn’t mean it’s a Nazi drink. In the same way that the Gregorian Calendar was created by a Pope, but that doesn’t make it a Christian Calendar. Also to answer OP’s question, it was the birth of Jesus. Nobody really denies that he existed and that he was influential. We just don’t think he was the supernatural zombie god that yall believe him to be. People who say BCE tend to be the kinds of people who operate based on observable facts.
Another more recent example of our constitutional republic kicking in and overruling voters is in 2008 with California’s prop 8 where voters decided gay marriage would be illegal and the courts said that vote by the citizens was unconstitutional and legalized gay marriage.
the founding fathers knew the difference - they did NOT use the terms democracy and republic interchangeably and they constantly warned against democracy as a form of government.
Completely distorting picture. It takes uninformed and inaccurate historical pictures, and pretends these are modern defintions. This is a totally false. When the term "democracy" first came into use in English, in the 1570s, it already meant representational democracy in its primary meaning, with direct democracy, which never existed, not even in Athens, but certianly not in the modern world, being a subset. (In Athens, according to Aristotle's The Athenian Constitution, office were filled by lot, and no, not everyone voted on the laws. That's a myth for children.) In any case, contemporary democracies are all constitutional democracies and the US is one of them. It is also a constitutional republic, the label prefered by the Founding Fathers, to clearly set aside the question of direct democracy (read Madison's no. 10 of Federalist Papers), but according to word meaning and usage, the US counts as a constitutional democracy or a constitutional republic, take your choice, there is no difference in this context, and the differences that are important must be spelled out, not presumed, in ignorance, to be included in the word itself. For example, we have a bill of rights, we have some degree of state authority (vs. federal), etc. None of this is implied by the word "republic" itself, but is implied by what our Constitution says.
This matches what I was taught in high-school, although it misses out on some important details, such as the fact that as few of 15% of Athenians were citizens, the rest being slaves and other classes of people.
"The ideal of a constitutional republic is individual liberty. In this century, great strides have been made toward the goal of subverting our republic and transforming it into a democracy. The foremost tactic of the subverters is the subversion of “language” - by calling America a democracy, until people thoughtlessly accept the term and use the term. Totalitarians have obscured the real meanings and principles of the American government.”
Dan Smoot.
Only two types of people support a Democracy. Morons, and those who which to rule them.
Too bad the overwhelming majority of the population is falling for this trick
I had to look up Dan Smoot on Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, he was a right wing nutjob,
@@adamdrouin2295It’s been a lie spread for decades. It didn’t happen overnight.
Democracy..
...
Any form of government where the Supreme power is vested in the people's vote directly or indirectly........democracy.
"We are a republic if, you can keep it---Ben Franklin.
True, but sadly, that's always been nothing more than a fallacy and a lie $OLD to "The People!"
We need to be more of a hybrid
Someone needs to explain this to the Democratic Party because they are always getting it wrong (but they’ll never change their mind)
A republic is a just government without a monarch.
@@Kenny-o6ino
So a Republic gives people rights that can't be infringed upon, and a pure democracy doesn't. Thank you, forefathers. For the constitution and the USA republic.
And make sure you don’t vote for the party that champions democracy.
Thanks for translating 😉
A representative government is a type of democracy. If you really want to upend democracy, the elected representatives would get their place by inheritance, not votes.
@@Skibbityboo0580The Founding Fathers woukd disagree. They were suspicious of democracies and drew up a constitution to reflect that. Democracy is never mentioned in the Constitution; republic, however, is.
@@countschad Still a representative democracy. They were suspicious of pure democracies, so we don't have that. We elect our reps through a democratic process.
Please tell me you're not one of those people that think republican = republic therefore democracy bad because democrat = democracy.
America was founded on the principles of a Constitutional Republic which protects the individual from their representatives and mob rule. Our founders assumed that men would be virtuous and honor the Constitution. Lacking any enforcement mechanisms allows unscrupulous politicians to circumvent and violate the peoples contract which is what we have today. Simply put, a democracy is universal equality and a republic is individual liberty.
This subject confuses me (I didn't pay attention to anything but girls trucks in school). Do we want a democracy or a republic? I just hear democrats always chanting to the people that we're loosing our democracy, but that's good right?
@@claytoncoker6489 we aren't losing democracy.
The US is not - and never has been a democracy. So what they are saying is factually false on both accounts.
So no, we're not.
Democracy also isn't inherently good. It's flawed. And not the best we got, despite arguments to the contrary.
The founders gave us the ability to tear down recreate a government that was out of control. Without an understanding of the Bill of Rights & our Constitution, we are handing our power away to criminals.
They did not assume men would be virtuous. They flat out said this would fail... and they put in safeguards and wrote about "what to do" when it does fail! They talked about it a lot too! Everyone seems to be unable to learn history despite having such great access to read the writing of the framers themselves!
@@CD-vb9fi Very well said, and all too true!
Excelent video. In my opinion I think the US is a Republic rather than a representative democracy because its laws are focus on protecting the individual rights rather than the majority.
Yeah I think that’s a really good point. 👍🏼Thanks for watching the video, commenting, and always being a big supporter of the channel!
ok
Yes but did you notice the people who are big on pushing the whole Republic thing, really want a democracy? Majority rule and the word minority is a dirty word to them.
@@tammydommel3039 With all due respect I disagree with that statement because a democracy can turn into the tyranny of the majority. In the case of the "minority" or labeling groups is against the rights of the individuals ,that enters into the realm of collectivism but that is another debate.
It is
It was well done indeed. I never cease to be amazed by how many folks don’t know the difference. Cheers!
Dan Smoots take on this is highly recomended for viewing or listening to. He goes 1 step further and points out that the US system is a Constitutional Republic while explaining the dangers of a true democracy.
Yes, Dan Smoots video is correct while this one is a lie.
The USA is not a true democracy it is a representative democracy. The video explained how a true democracy is impractical. Did you not bother to watch it?
@@CD-vb9fiExactly. 100% Correct 💯❤
ua-cam.com/video/KZOtEbwwfOM/v-deo.html
This one isn't a lie. It's just too simplified.
I tried to explain this to my sister who keeps referring to the United States as a democracy and why I am against a pure democracy. I shared this video with her.
She still wouldn't be able to understand it
@@tcaldwell1782 "the biggest lie when repeated gets believed" (attributed to Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister)
That's why Democrats repeat the word so often, to reinforce the deception.
It is still a democracy.
Did you not watch the video? It’s just not a pure democracy. So people calling it one - are correct.
@@josephmayfield945 its a Republic, but okay keep telling yourself that
@josephmayfield945 If we were any kind of democracy, our constitution would tell us that. But the founders hated democracy and decided against it. That's why no form of the word democracy can be found in the constitution.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
Republic 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Before Dwight D. Eisenhower became President "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" wasn't in the pledge of allegiance. He added it because of the Red Scare. Its a symbol of theocracy.
"under god" wasn't added until 1954 on Flag Day. There's no evidence that any gods have ever existed, so it was silly to add it in the first place.
@@EddieSchultz62 there's also no evidence of Darwinsm yet we consider it fact in the school system.
@@philosopher-2007 Okay, cool...You admit there's no evidence for any gods' existence. But there is a lot of evidence for evolution. The ToE is the best explanation for evolution accepted by about 99% of life science scientists, and evolution itself is a fact. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
And to the republic for which it stands
Don't look too closely at the so-called Pledge Of Allegiance.
Don't step on my toe.
@@francisdashwood1760
Why not?
I know I'm repeating many others before me here, but it must be said. Thank you for basic, straightforward educational materials without bias or agenda (other than education 🙂). Its nearly impossible to find this these days, and I REALLY respect your efforts and content!
Thank you so much! It really helps contribute to the motivation to continue making more videos when I know people are appreciating them. Thanks for watching!
ok
And it's in our national anthem
@@IllustratetoEducate Except you're wrong. As I demonstrated with my comment, and historical sources. I didn't even get into the words, quotes, and writings of the Founding Fathers and the Framers. I didn't cite John Locke, William Blackstone, Montesquieu, Madison, Hamilton, Eldridge Gerry, and so many more. Not to mention the Anti-Federalists. You're putting out bad information that will continue to allow those seeking to subvert the beliefs, values, traditions, and the Constitutional Rule of Law, and pervert it into something it was never meant to be.
@@XLava_what is in our national anthem? If you're referring to "republic" that would be, the pledge of allegiance.
The Framers, and Founders most certainly did not use "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably. In Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution it states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,". The Framers and Founders were fearful of democracies. They knew exactly what they were. " Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” James Madison Federalist 10 and 51. Also, the Founding Fathers and Framers studied history. From Ancient Greece with Plato's Republic, Aristotle, Polybius, and more. They knew full well the meaning of a democracy or a republic. Each member of the House is elected by popular vote in their respective congressional districts, but Americans don't get to vote on federal laws. Not a democracy. Originally members of the US Senate were appointed by their respective state legislatures. Not a democracy. The President of the United States is not elected by popular vote but by the Electoral College. Meaning when you vote you aren't voting for the president you're voting for the electors of the party of the president in your state that have vowed to vote for the candidate of that party. Not a democracy. If people knew more about the differences, and histories between democracies, and republics, especially the Republic of these United States they wouldn't carelessly, and unthinkingly throw about the word democracy and attempt to claim that the United States of America is one> It was never meant to be one, or should be made one. Democracies always without fail degenerate into tyrannies, and dictatorships and everyone suffers. Lastly, not once will you find the word Democracy, democracy, or democratic in the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress October 14th, 1774, The Articles of Association October 20th, 1774, The Declaration of Independence July 4th, 1776, The Articles of Confederation November 15th, 1777, The US Constitution September 17th, 1787, The Bill of Rights December 15th, 1791. But in your infinite wisdom and knowledge of politics, history, and law know more than they that created this nation, and you know more about what they thought, wrote, and spoke than they themselves. Try again.
Dam their is someone who is awake, we hear both partys speaking of america the true democracy. Even putin saying we are. Horse shit.
Democratic process and democracy are not same. Thats what I got from reading.
Well said, I agree wholeheartedly 👍
You are SPOT ON! I am so glad there was someone here a year before me to call out the lies in this video! Thank you for being an informed American! We are in very short supply!
@@CD-vb9fi Thank you for the compliment.
The United States is both a federal constitutional representative republic and federal constitutional representative democracy. It is irrelevant that the word democracy isn't in the constitution. A republic is simply a government without a monarch.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
Republic ! Republic ! Republic !
Bros opinion is so oddly strong that had to chant in the UA-cam comment section without using all caps, but using a capital only after every “ !“ but only one letter of course!
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
*Insert Star Wars joke here*
@@chrisnichols9014 🤣🤣🤣 red alert: yuris revenge.
Hell yeah brother! Coming from a polish slav living in Germany. Europe is domed....
You draw the Constitution very well.
Thank you! 😊
@@IllustratetoEducate
3:05 You were wrong here. The constitution does not allow interpretation such as "2nd Amendment only covers muskets" or "You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater". Both of these interpretations are unconstitutional because "interpretations" are inherently unconstitutional they always seek to limit and not expand. The founders knew technology would evolve so they were intentionally vague in their wording. The constitution only allows added amendments that do not contradict existing ones assuming a significant vote will approve one.
🗝 Straightforward explanation, that ALL should be able to understand in a few minutes! 👍🏼
Thanks! That’s the hope behind my channel! I appreciate the comment!
but it's a lie... I can make up anything to sell a lie to.
I like the fact that you are giving examples on each system. Keep going!
Pretty sure they knew what they were saying when they said republic.
We are a constitutional republic
Yep and democracy is a lie in this country. No such thing
Constitutional representative republic
@Totaro77 All republics by definition are representative.
A Constitutional Republic is a Democracy, they mean the same thing.
www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-108hdoc94/pdf/CDOC-108hdoc94.pdf
We are a Constitutional Republic. Ruled by the Constitution which limits govt.
Democracy and Republic are competing political ideologies
Representative democracy is a worse idea than a democracy. It’s easier to persuade 151 of 300 elected representatives to support legislation that is not in the public’s interest, than it is to get 165 million voters to support legislation that is not in the interest of the general public
Just because we elect representatives doesn’t magically transform America into a democracy
The founding fathers warned us against political parties
God bless the republic 🇺🇸
Amen 🙏 🙏 🙏 ❤
Let's go TRUMP from Canada lol
@@aidansaviakjuk8311…
Thank you for the simplistic unbiased explanation of so many misunderstood topics
You’re welcome! I hope this simple explanation can be helpful to those that are trying to get a better understanding of government and politics. 👍🏼
ok
Unbiased? He lies in the video. Kratos is "strength, power" in Greek... NOT "rule".
You can look this up... right? Or are you that incapable that you will just believe anything they say on the internet despite the fact you can look up greek words and their meanings online?
I was just thinking about this.....now I am getting a unbiased explanation
Thank you
I’m glad you found this to be relevant to what you’ve been wondering about lately. 👍🏼
ok
It is biased actually. He said we have both. May I suggest you go to Robert Breaker - Republic va Democracy.
it's amusing that you consider this in any way unbiased 😂😂
Basically Democracy is the dictatorship of the mayority and Republic is the representation of the mayority and minorities in a context of laws.
@@souventudubanned dictatorship of the majority is an oxymoron
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
@@Kyle-fq4kq It would be more accurate to use tyranny of the majority.
Democracy is not mentioned once in constitution or bill of rights that's the difference
#DEMOCRACY
The USA is strictly a republic, no? People vote for representatives, constitution, and minority is protected from majority are all republic things
It’s both a republic and a representative democracy
You have to pay to live, die, travel, provide for your family and self.
Go fish with out a license in a God made body of water or hunt on public paid forest (taxes paid for) if you get caught see what happens..?
Court dates, fines, BS.
What happen to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
You never even truly own your house/land -property taxes are rent, stop paying and they take your land.
Same with car and registration. Right to travel is freedom. Freedom to move.
Sounds like majority rule.
Under common law, who did I hurt by getting 3 fish out of a natural body of water to feed my family?
Pulled over for no seat belt?
Where is the crime?
No crime. Just majority rule making regulations and codes to follow.
@@justinweinzierl7547
None of these are relevant to what a republic is. The point of a republic is to reflect the majority opinion anyways.
@@chandelier6811
No. Republic and Democracy are different things, despite a federal department of education trying to conflate the two.
We are a Constitutional Republic with democratic elections. Notice, democratic is an adjective, not a noun.
In a republic, the government is not your ruler. It is delegated specific powers. Even if the majority wants to do some things they cannot if the charter (Constitution) did not give the government those powers.
This is significantly different than a democracy or representative democracy where the majority can simply vote themselves the power to do what they want.
@@jameeztherandomguy5418
Close but you're missing a very important nuance. A republic delegates only a specific list of powers to the government. If majority opinion wants to do something NOT delegated to the government, then too bad, the majority does not have that power. This is often ignored by those who wish to conflate a republic and a democracy as being the same thing, but they are not.
A republic protects us from democracy.
But not really. If enough people WANT something they can vote for the leaders who will get it done. Period. Sure, it makes it harder for the majority to overcome the minority, but by no means is it impossible.
@@DS-gt1ft A republic establishes a set of rules that cannot be violated unless you are willing to elect criminals.
The biggest flaw in the US constitution is the fact that any sitting government can revoke an amendment, like was done in the 1930s that banned alcohol and tobacco
One government can make or revoke a federal amendment
The Australians have a great system where NO CONSTITUTIONAL change can occur without a vote on the very issue of consirutional change from the people whether it be in a mail in Plebesite or more commonly a Referendum
Excellent breakdown of the differences! One thing to add is republics also allow the isolation of certain public things that can harm the public at large if left unrestricted. In America's case, we took the Monarchy (Executive branch), Parliament (Legislative Branch), and East-India Trading Company (Corporations) and isolated them together; so all Constitutionally created things, such as the United States (Washington D.C) and its Laws that pass will not effect the Freedom(s) that Americans have by Right. Thus, limiting and restricting the Republic's power to only Persons (Titles or Corporations) they create, and all who bear those Persons.
You did fine till 2:35 when you went off the rails. Also, though many of the representatives at the convention were as ignorant about the form of government being proposed as you appear to be, the leadership, Madison, Franklin, Jefferson (in France but still involved) knew exactly what they were about.
We have a representative REPUBLIC. ALL of the founding Fathers deeply distrusted a democracy. Additionally, all the previous democratic experiments had failed miserably! Madison,et al, didn't want to repeat that mistake. Much of what inspired the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution was greatly influenced by the writings of Thomas Payne and Francis Bacon.
When asked what kind of government had been established, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it!" Many of our states are making serious errors by turning their governments into Democracies. California is a good example of this type of mob rule. It's a disaster, and the state is coming apart at the seams as a result.
In a Democracy you get to vote . Example 3 Wolves and one Sheep and you get to vote "Whats for Dinner " but in a Republic you also get to vote what's for dinner but minority Rights are Protected.. think about it.
How are they protected? I’m a bit confused. Because if a republic has rights that protect the minority, what if the majority just elect leaders to take away those rights?? I mean we see that with the 2nd amendment all the time right? It’s a right that’s is always being infringed upon because the majority votes in people that infringe on it. I really am trying to understand not argue lol
We are a constitutional republic with democratic processes
3:37 just learned this, Judicial Review is not a constitutionally mandated thing or even named in the constitution. Judicial Review comes from the Case of Marbury V Madison
Who knew there were so many constitutional scholars and experts on government in the comment section? This was a good video explanation and I use it to help explain the difference to my students. Well done.
Nice! I’m glad to hear that (as a former teacher myself)
Yeah, a certain sect within the country loves to say “we’re a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy” as if that makes their cult any less bizarre.
Alot of us paid attention in civics class, the sparky attitude is unwelcome.
@@CB-hw7iu Sorry, have a pleasant day.
Your illustrations created to show what you are speaking about worked very well. Indeed your video is concise and easy to understand. I greatly appreciate your efforts. - Peter age 74
ACTUALLY... the US is a constitutional republic.
it is both. They are not mutually exclusive
@@roryvance3694 but they are different🫤 that’s why the majority never has a bigger say. take a civics class n come on back over 🤺
@roryvance3694 Yes they are mutually exclusive. You can’t have a republic and a democracy at the same time. Just because we elect our representatives does not mean we are a democracy. A republic is a form of representative government elected or not. A democracy is the rule of the majority (mob) without any laws to protect the minority.
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk Incorrect. You would have failed my Freshman American Politics course test on this. Per Robert Dahl, the foremost political theorist in 100 years (was chair of Yale's Political Science department and former head of the APSA if you dont know what that is..trust me you are out of your depth), he notes three common traits of a modern democracy. 1. A free and fair elections 2. no significant barriers for the citizens to participate politically (like free speech , free press and assembly ) 3. 2 or more viable political parties . All those qualify as democracy. I would argue we were not a democracy until 1964-5. He notes that 'republic" and liberal democracy are used interchangeably in the modern world and that the framers of the Constitution dislike of the term "democracy" was its association with Athenian democracy , also known as "direct democracy". Now a modern Republic simply has one group of people governing in the name of its citizenry and ultimately sovreignity rests in the citizens, however that group is selected. So ..the US, both democracy and republic. The UK democracy without republic (sovereignity rests in the monarch) and the PRC is republic without democracy. North Korea is neither a republic nor a democracy. I suggest reading Dahl's " A Preface to Democratic theory" or "Polyarchy" , as pretty much every grad student in poli sci has to read one of those two
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk There are countries all over the world that operate as two forms of government. The US is one of them. A democracy gains legitimacy when it has a constitution that guarantees the rights of the individual. A republic, at its most basic level, has nothing to do with individual liberty.
Loved this. Simple, straight forward, and short. Learned more now rhen i did in HS. Lol sounds funny but seriously what a great video.
Finally people are getting this out to educate. I have been screaming over and over on every social site commenting posts where people say what is good or not good for our democracy. My comments always say "WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY"! Thank you for the video. I will share this every where. People need to learn what generation x and before all learned by the 7th grade. We need the about Americas history and the constitution taught in our schools like they used to be. I do think that is far more important than your pronouns or how many genders there are (God save us all). Again, Thanks for the video.
2:30 I call bs because no where in the founding documents was the term democracy used.
Read these and you'll realize how Democracy was included
www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-108hdoc94/pdf/CDOC-108hdoc94.pdf
Perfectly simple and understandable!
We have always been a republic, but we do have many democratic tendencies.
That’s a good way of putting it! :)
Yes, we use democratic processes, but, that makes democratic an adjective, not a noun, which is a significant difference. This linguistic trick is being used to usurp more power to the government without ratifying amendments they know they can't pass.
This is a nice simple approach to understanding concepts that shift as all definitions of word do. I do feel that the role of the individual voter , which is not required in a republic, deserves to be noted as a critical and essential foundation of United States democracy. "Government of, by and for the People "requires ongoing direct input by the citizenry in addition to electing representatives to act on our behalf. A functioning democracy is designed to protect the majority from minority rule.
What if the majority in a democracy want something that isn’t right , morally or ethically? Then what ?
Then they get what they want
then we the people use the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves from their criminal actions...
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
Benjamin Franklin
So in a democracy, if the majority is not moral, the laws will not be, either. This is precisely why the US is a republic instead.
Your instructional materials are well crafted. Thank you.
Glad you like them! Thank you! 🙏🏼
Yea but we are currently an Oligarchy, because the 2 sides still cant figure out whats more important
We're a republic and democracy but NOT a monarchy. We rule by the people who elect rep. Who vote for them. They have ability to vote them out. Taking that away makes us a dictatorship. We can't go that route where only one man makes our decisions for us!
New subscriber thanks for these endeavors
Thank you so much for subscribing!
This was so good and satisfying at the same time!!!
Thank you for making this concept simple ❤
Glad it was helpful!
Who decides those rules that protect the minorities from the majority in a republic?
In America it is the legislature, and the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of any and all laws/rights.
The Constitution. The government is only given an explicit list of powers. If the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say the government is delegated the authority to do something, then it does NOT have that power.
The government is currently violating this in MANY ways, but because most people are ignorant and/or apathetic about politics, we have not held them accountable to being Constitutionally limited.
It's a hybrid of democracy and republic. You should be suspicious of why Republican talk so much about this subject.
The only reason why the Republican party resurfaced this debate is not because they care about you and me when they talk about "minorities", but because the elites, the donors that pay them want full control of the country and to do that they need overwhelming power over all of us.
So... Republic is a representative democracy?
Essentially, yes
As soon as he started defining the USA's governing style all I could hear was... a republic. He kinda lost me there.
Not, necessarily. A republic is governed by laws, not the whims of the majority. Any voting by the people must adhere to the already established laws. In a republic individual rights are sovereign and private property is protected. The majority can’t just decide to take your bicycle. It is yours, you own it they can’t take it away from you.
Thank you, that was an excellent explanation. I'm sure as I have many others of benefit from this. 3:56 3:56
Why does it seem like the majority (99%) is being played pretty badly by the minority (1%)?
They aren’t
@@justlol7281 Sure about that? Check out the Princeton research that proves that the US is an oligarchy run by the elite few.
@@justlol7281 the minority determines who gets to run for office
Because the majority is ignorant of the truth and they readily believe in the lies, some of which are peddled by this very video! THAT is why they are getting played pretty badly. The framers openly admitted that "Republics" are very susceptible to "foreign influences" which is why the USA was "Isolationist" for the first Century and 1/2. But the world needed to get the USA out of that so WW1 & 2 were started. Ever since WW2 end... USA became the very evil it resisted!
Good video. You have some crazy Sharpie skills
Personally what I get from this is that a republic uses many aspects of democracy but has more representation for under represented groups. One thing I notice however is that the democracy and republic have both the capacity to be good or bad depending on the context. A minority group could have massive advantages over other groups like wealth and power despite being a minority by numbers. But the voting majority could completely stall and even deflect meaningful and objectively good policy change at the same time due to bias.
No. A republic makes a list of powers the people give to the government. This is how people are protected from the majority. You simply don't give the government the power to hurt others.
The only thing "democratic" about a republic is if they use democratic elections to elect their representatives. In this case, "democratic" is an adjective for the elections, not an adjective of the form of government and not a noun like democracy. They are different things.
Moreover, "disadvantage" in this context is only relevant to THE LAWS. Everyone must be treated equally by THE LAW. It is actually IMMORAL to expect equal advantage or outcomes. Those require a dictator with a finger on the scales, which means some people WILL be abused for the benefit of others.
Most things should NEVER be subject to "policy", no matter how much you think the outcome might be better. This violates freedom and opens the doors to tyrants.
I just want to point out that constitution does not grant power to overturn laws which is called Judicial Review SCOTUS granted themselves that doctrine in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison
On the flip side, if they don't have Judicial review, then the constitution is meaningless.
Very nice but kratos doesn't mean rule it means "state" wich means a state by the people
Good clarification! Thanks!
What is the Greek words of democracy?
The word democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", meaning people, and "kratos" meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as "power of the people": a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.
The republic definition you use is with a constitution attached, and could, in many ways, be considered a representative democracy, as democracy mostly involves the rule of the people in some way, shape, or form.
The nuance you are missing is the inalienable rights. The "rule of law" means the laws are above even the government. The law is the ruler. And the supreme law is the Constitution, which limits the government to explicitly listed powers, preventing the government from enacting laws at the whim of a temporary majority outside the scope of the delegated authority in the Constitution.
The elected representatives cannot legalize murder, theft, etc, no matter the majority opinion/vote because it is not delegated the authority to legislate these by the Constitution. This is how minority rights are protected and why it is significantly different than a democracy, where majority opinion rules absolute.
Most often a democracy is just a type of republic, but a republic is not necessarily a type of democracy. Venice and early American times were essentially aristocratic republics, and the process of developing mass democracy has only made things worse and has only made the regime more powerful, because people have been stup1d enough to believe that casting a ballot gives them any real choice, or can somehow hold people accountable while you give them special powers to do things that nobody else has the right to do, while people are muddied so much in their thought process to actually believe that they somehow consented to tyrannical acts by the regime in any meaningful way. Of course it’s even worse than that because most real power in practice is held by unelected even less accountable bureaucrats, bankers, and corporations while being able to grift off of the illusion of choice through elections
Lmao you had me in the first part not gonna lie
Kinda like “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely 🤔
So a republic is a democracy ruled by a set of accepted rules…
The U.S. IS a Constitutional Republic.
Each State IS a Democracy.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING ❤ 🇺🇸
We're a federal constitutional representative democracy AND a federal constitutional republic.
Constitutional: Our system of government is considered constitutional, because the power exercised by the people and their representatives is bound by the constitution and the broader rule of law.
Federal: Our government is also a federal system, since power is shared between a national government, representing the entire populace, and regional and local governments.
We exercise our political power in a different way: by voting in elections to choose our representatives. That’s representative democracy.
The Constitution does not use the term “democracy.” It’s true. But John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Marshall all used the word. These scholars understood representative democracy - the American variety - to be democracy all the same.
John Adams referred to the US as a representative democracy in 1794 in "The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, volume 6" on page 19. "No determinations are carried, it is true, in a simple or representative democracy, but by consent of the majority of the people or their representatives."
Thomas Jefferson referred to the US as a representative democracy in his "Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies" in Letter CXXIL to Mr. Wendover on March 13th, 1815:
"I consider the war, with him, as 'made on good advice,' inasmuch, as it as exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy, compared with the misrule of Kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural rights of expatriations, and of a common property in the ocean, and raised us to that grace in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen soldiers, by land and by sea, the wisdom of our institutions and their observance of justice, entitled us in the eyes to in the eyes of the world."
In addition, Noah Webster in 1785, and St. George Tucker in 1803 edition of Blackstone referred to the US as a representative democracy, and James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by referring to the 3 forms of government as "monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical." He states:
"Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE…."
Sir William Blackstone, who was much read and admired by the framers, likewise used "democracy" to include republics: "Baron Montesquieu lays it down, that luxury is necessary in monarchies, as in France; but ruinous to democracies, as in Holland. With regard therefore to England, whose government is compounded of both species, it may still be a dubious question, how far private luxury is a public evil …." Holland was of course a republic, and England was compounded of monarchy and government by elected representatives; Blackstone was thus labeling such government by elected representatives as a form of "democrac[y]."
Chief Justice John Marshall defended the Constitution in the convention by describing it as implementing "democracy" (as opposed to "despotism"):
"I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom."
So why does the word democracy not appear in the US constitution, Federalist Papers, etc.? It's because the framers couldn't put both democracy and republic in the same sentence to describe the nation. They needed a word that defined the US states coming together to form a nation. A republic was better described the autonomous nature of each state coming together. However, democracy is the lifeblood of the American Republic and the fact that the word democracy doesn't appear in the constitution or the Federalist Papers doesn't negate the words of the framers as noted above.
We have to push back against the claim that we're not a democracy because it has sinister motives. What these people really want is an autocratic nation run by a demagogue.
Thanks for the great info video, just subscribed 😀 and going to check the rest of your stuff, thank you very much 😊
Welcome aboard! I'm glad you found the video to be helpful. There are over 120+ videos to check out. And if you have any ideas for new videos, just let me know.
0:21 Kratos!!!!
When I saw this comment, I immediately thought of the soyjack pointing meme. 🫨👆😮
The definition of democracy provided is wrong or incomplete. Democracy is not strictly defined as a direct or Athenian democracy. There are other forms of democracy. The video does a disservice to the topic.
Don't let this guy, whoever he is, tell you any different, America is a Republic.
Prove it.
@@Mike-ne8eb stupid
@@Mike-ne8eb LMAO! The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. We *have* democracy; we are not *a* democracy. Our Founding Fathers rejected democracy as mob rule (as they should have). Nowhere in the Constitution or other founding documents will you find the word democracy. Article IV Section 4 of our Constitution guarantees all states in the Union a Republican form of government. We are a Republic. A direct democracy is for universal equality. A Republic is for individual liberty. In a direct democracy, we the people would vote for/against laws. In a Republic, our elected representatives vote for/against laws. We are a Republic whether you like it or not. The mere fact you don't know that speaks volumes about your education (or lack thereof).
@@anneharle2644 John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did Sr. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted.
Chief Justice John Marshall-who helped lead the fight in the Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution-likewise defended the Constitution in that convention thus:
I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom.
James Wilson, Supreme Court justice at Constitutional Convention referred to the constitution as "democratical" when compared to the "monarchical and aristocratical" forms of government:
"Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE…"
Thomas Jefferson referred to the United States as a representative democracy in his letter to Mr. Peter H. Wendover in March of 1815.
Monticello Mar. 13. 15.
Sir
Your favor of Jan. 30. was recieved after long delay on the road, and I have to thank you for the volume of discourses which you have been so kind as to send me. I have gone over them with great satisfaction, and concur with the able preacher in his estimate of the character of the belligerents in our late war, and lawfulness of defensive war. I consider the war, with him, as ‘made on good advice,’ that is, for just causes, and it’s dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of kings; has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural right of expatriation, and of a common property in the ocean, and raised us to that grade in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen-souldiers, by land and by sea, the wisdom of our institutions and their observance of justice entitled us to in the eyes of the world
@@anneharle2644 The United States is both a federal constitutional representative republic and federal constitutional representative democracy. It is irrelevant that the word democracy isn't in the constitution. A republic is simply a government without a monarch.
To put it short a republic is still a democracy but has restriction to protect minorities (ethnicity,political belief) give the minority voice,power and say about governance.
Not really. Both Russia and China are republics, but not democracies. And saying that they protect minorities and political opponents is a lie.
America is both a democracy and a republic.
@@GGNH1234 china is not a republic it is a communist monopoly administer by politburo a council. russia is a corporation run by oligarchs.
@@GGNH1234 bruh then by definition they are not republics
@@enderreaper1482 If they aren’t republics or monarchies, then what form of government are they?
@@GGNH1234 Dictatorship
Eggcellent video!
“Is the US a republic or a democracy?”
It is neither. It is an aristocratic oligarchy where a minority of wealthy people rule.
To answer the question, is it a democracy or a republic, it is necessary to first determine who rules. If your answer was “the people rule” this is incorrect. The people do not rule in either a republic or a democracy. For that you would need to be a sortition. Only with universal suffrage and sortition will the government be a proportional, representative democracy.
Read the documents! We are a Republic! The democrats party is trying their hardest to turn it into a dictatorship though.
Thanks to the foresight of our founding fathers!
The protections of the minority come from the majority support though. Many issues in our country weren't even referred to the Constitution until there was pressure to. Not to mention our Constitution informed our Republic, which in it, enshrines many democratic rights, from voting, to rights of a jury.
As you said, a Representative Democracy feels the most accurate.
As you point out, a republic is necessarily democratic, but a democracy is not necessarily a republic. Therein lies the confusion. The "argument" (if you even want to call it that) seems to be strictly semantic. The republic is inherently democratic in that it takes the premise of inclusive participation, by the people, for the people and adds safeguards as a hedge against the dangers of excess such as mob rule. To argue this point seems every bit as absurd as claiming that a piece of steak is not meat because, well, it's steak, not meat dammit! Semantics.
Out with Democracy just as our forefathers intended. Back to being a Republic.
@@souventudubanned Wrong.. Wow, some simply choose ignorance.
@@souventudubanned Lol, I see. You're a child. Good bye have a great day little one (Remember folks never fear the Truth like this individual).
Yeah. Throw 'We the People" out the window.
@@bwanna23 What are you talking about? Democracy is against the people not for their Freedoms. Pull your head out your ass.
Can anyone explain to me why Democracy always devolves into Tyranny? I'm not challenging the notion but rather trying to learn and wrap my head around it so I'm not just parroting talking points. Thank you!
If everyone understood this, democrat party would be DONE
Word!
Govern, NOT rule! There IS a difference.
Excellent video - Seems like we just need a 'Chartered Democracy' then.
Whereby people can make decisions for themselves instead of [lobby bought] Representatives.
But there is a Constitution in place to ensure no laws that harm a certain minority group can ever be passed - Human Rights basically.
?
No, Democracy would be WORSE.
A democracy, the majority can tell you what to do on anything the majority decides to. The point of a republic is to make sure the government CANNOT tell you what to do in protected things.
Our problem is too many people who are IGNORANT of how this works so they don't get mad when our government violates the limits placed on it by the Constitution, or the ones who WILLINGLY ignore it because they REALLY think they should be able to tell you what to do.
Are we a Democracy or a Constitutional Republic? We are neither.
We are democratic but not a democracy.
Just having elections doesnt make a country a Democracy anymore than having churches makes it a theocracy, or have technology makes it a technocracy.
In fact there is only one office in the United states that is filled by National vote, and it has never been by National popular vote.
The supreme court and bureaucrats have destroyed any notion that our country operates according to a Constitution.
Most rules we have to follow aren't created by vote or even representatives of the people, so we aren't a republic either.
We are a bureaucracy. We are supposed to be a Democratic Constitutional Republic but we aren't.
This is incorrect. America is a republic. The word democracy is no where in the constitution, bill of rights, declaration, or anywhere in the federalists. To say that democracy was not well defined is extremely ignorant and pompous.
Do you have anything to back up that this is “incorrect” and that democracy was well defined back in the 1700s?
Yes. Our founding fathers rejected a democracy in favor of a republic because they knew the difference...
@@IllustratetoEducate They literally rejected democracy when formulating the Constitution
@@IllustratetoEducate Respectfully, I've also learned that the word "Democracy" isn't in the u.s. constitution, bill of rights & the rest on purpose bc the founding fathers of america HATED Democracy & what it stood for ultimately. However, they did put the word "republic" in these important documents & clearly defined them. My understanding is the Bankers injected the term Democracy into our lives to push their power on the world. Notice I used lower case letters to describe the republic? The strawman is a powerful tool used by the elite bankers.
I got this from Google:
Is Constitution and republic the same?
In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.
Also:
By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority.
Reading this tells me clearly that a republic & a Democracy are absolutely not the same & should not be used interchangeably.
Wow I never knew the difference till now at 61 years old!
The constitution says we are a republic. End of video.....?
Vote a straight RED TICKET. Pass it around.
Republics are a type of democracy. Just like parlamentary monarchies are a type of democracy.
Yes, they are. Star Wars is a great example of a Republic.
President Woodrow Wilson, a college professor and president, gov of New Jersey, repeatedly said the entry of the US to fight in WWI was to, “Keep the World Safe for Democracy.”
The difference between the ancient and modern concept of democracy - as you said the tyranyy of majority is the ancient concept that's the reason many political thinkers opposed it, the modern concept is more or less imbibed the republican concept too into it, thus we can use them interchangeably .
The US is a Constitutional Republic of states with states rights by way of a 10th Amendment. Article IV Section 4 of that Constitution says, "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." The words democracy and federal are not found in the US Constitution. You fail miserably to note that a democracy is centralized as a federal system with a strong central government while a pure republic is decentralized with a weak central government governed by the states. The US is NOT a democracy. Our US Constitutional Republic has been unlawfully/unconstitutionally perverted by democrats and federalists from its original intent of a pure republic. We have not been able to keep our republic as Franklin stipulated below.
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
--Benjamin Franklin's response to Elizabeth Willing Powel's question: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"; September 17, 1787
The Framers of the Constitution were vehemently opposed to democracy. They had a classical education and they knew that “democracy” means people power, direct participation of the people in deliberation and decision-making in the making of decisions concerning common public affairs.
The Framers were all wealthy insiders. They were concerned for the defense of the propertied interests of the wealthy. As John Jay put it, “the affairs of the country should be controlled by the people who own it.” They were obvious elitists. Their goal in creation of the Constitution was to put up roadblocks to prevent a mass based democratic movement from gaining control of the government.
Right wingers use the slur “mob rule” to refer to direct control over public affairs by the masses but that just tells us they want the rich to stay in control of the country and continue dictating to everyone else.
Isn't it time to change this republic to something better? To end bribe taking representatives acting against the will of the People? We now have the technology to become a direct democracy. So Let's Do It.
I wouldn't want the masses to directly control the policy-making process of the nation, particularly because of how uneducated and idiotic political ideas are shared like wildfire on social medias
Except the United States is one of the few places in the world where people around come here for opportunities. Many immigrants like my grandparents were very poor. Within a generation or two much better off. People aren't trying to break out of this country yet. But they are still trying to break in. This is not at all in line with your summation of our country. You're saying the founders and the documents are corrupt, which is Anti-american.
So, I guess we can throw "we the people" out the window.
To the republic for which it stands don’t forget it
Which is the best form of government in the world 🤔
I would say it depends on the issues of the country so take that of what you will
@@souventudubanned uniocracy what's that sounds interesting
Theocracy
An engineering pilotocracy, because engineers and pilots know what works and what doesn’t.
There is no perfect, because too many things are trade-offs.
If you don't have freedom, eventually you will have tyranny, even if it's on a small scale.
If you do have freedom, you will have to accept things and/or people you do not like having freedom also.
Should someone be allowed to be racist?
If not, then you do not have freedom.
If you have freedom, the laws do not stop racist people from being racist. They still cannot violate the rights of others, but they can be very offensive and say or do emotionally hurtful things, etc.
So it's all trade-offs.
"Best" then will depend on your values. Is it worth allowing your government to RULE you and take away your freedom when they deem they know better than you just so someone is not allowed to be racist?
I'll take freedom every time, because with freedom also comes the right for me to choose to never associate with racists even if I can't stop them and the ability to speak MY conscience to denounce them.
Had me till 1:33 “BCE” lol. What event started the common era
The Christians even created the calendar the entire world goes by. They at least deserve the credit of AD and BC
@@RJ-re3eythat’s an odd way of thinking about it. Things change all the time. Like Fanta was created by Nazi Germany, that doesn’t mean it’s a Nazi drink. In the same way that the Gregorian Calendar was created by a Pope, but that doesn’t make it a Christian Calendar.
Also to answer OP’s question, it was the birth of Jesus. Nobody really denies that he existed and that he was influential. We just don’t think he was the supernatural zombie god that yall believe him to be.
People who say BCE tend to be the kinds of people who operate based on observable facts.
Why can't I mention the US Bill of Rights in the comments section?
So you’re telling me that them even SAYING Trump is a threat to our democracy is meaningless? Crazy
You should make a video on the Democratic Republic of Congo
Another more recent example of our constitutional republic kicking in and overruling voters is in 2008 with California’s prop 8 where voters decided gay marriage would be illegal and the courts said that vote by the citizens was unconstitutional and legalized gay marriage.
the founding fathers knew the difference - they did NOT use the terms democracy and republic interchangeably and they constantly warned against democracy as a form of government.
My name is Tony Naeem smith I am your number one fan
Completely distorting picture. It takes uninformed and inaccurate historical pictures, and pretends these are modern defintions. This is a totally false. When the term "democracy" first came into use in English, in the 1570s, it already meant representational democracy in its primary meaning, with direct democracy, which never existed, not even in Athens, but certianly not in the modern world, being a subset. (In Athens, according to Aristotle's The Athenian Constitution, office were filled by lot, and no, not everyone voted on the laws. That's a myth for children.) In any case, contemporary democracies are all constitutional democracies and the US is one of them. It is also a constitutional republic, the label prefered by the Founding Fathers, to clearly set aside the question of direct democracy (read Madison's no. 10 of Federalist Papers), but according to word meaning and usage, the US counts as a constitutional democracy or a constitutional republic, take your choice, there is no difference in this context, and the differences that are important must be spelled out, not presumed, in ignorance, to be included in the word itself. For example, we have a bill of rights, we have some degree of state authority (vs. federal), etc. None of this is implied by the word "republic" itself, but is implied by what our Constitution says.
This matches what I was taught in high-school, although it misses out on some important details, such as the fact that as few of 15% of Athenians were citizens, the rest being slaves and other classes of people.