You're simply arguing against facts or suggesting I'm a Republican or something? I'm of the same party as George Washington. He also hoped political parties would never be formed.
I fail to see how you could possibly infer from my previous post that you are member of the Republican Part (
GOP)......... Nor how am I arguing against facts?
Simply because some perceived messiah states the flying spaghetti monster exists does not make it correct and factual. That errors exist and perpetuated certainly may be
factual. Yet stubbornly perpetual repetition of such unreasonable falsehoods do not make them correct. Too often the USA has this dogmatic belief of the infallibility for its founding fathers. They most certainly are not irreproachable scholars of absolute truths. As any, they were fallible men, and sadly, errors of their words any way have taken on a theological absoluteness in the USA. On this point of the USA uniquely conflating republicanism with democratically representative legislators (as opposed non-representative direct/pure democracy), a great point of this erroneously linguistic ignorance can be placed at the feet of James Madison.
Thank you, Bradley, for raising these points, as its a wonderful tangent for this discussion to demonstrate a long standing failing of the dogmatic culture in the US educational system and its continued failings to instruct rational and critical thought.
A founding father said it so it must be so....
In theory, the US is Representative Democracy in the form of Constitutional Republic, in practice lol?
There you go again, conflating republicanism with that of necessitating elected legislators and without any practice of direct demoncracy -- no, any government and legislating bodies composed of democratically elected representatives is not some special uniquely republican system, and thereby discounting the other constitutionally representative democracies in the world being as such despite not being republics (ceremonial (or not) heads of states that are unelected).
All of this stuff is just a search away. Not that Wikipedia is the perfect source, but at least start there. Look specifically under examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Ah search away eh? Evidently you missed your article's opening line:
Direct democracy (also known as
pure democracy)
[1] is a form of
democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a
representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.
The distinction between governance by elected representatives as opposed to governance by public plebiscites. Bradley, I already convered that in my previous post, so thank you for reaffirming the correctness of my presentation.
Now, yes, this is Wikipedia, and that entry's section concerning the USA evidently has been edited by US hands sourced by a rather poor educational system that continues to perpetuate a corruption of language. Why is that? Where may be the origins of the uniquely US sourcing of such errors in defining and recognising
republicanism as an absolute conflation with that legislatures of elected
representatives?
The USA has a uniquely ignorant and colloquial application for a republic. Why is that? How did such a 'novel' (crudely put, STUPID) meaning of the term come to be and remain for only some in the USA? Bradley, I return your Wiki article with this
entry's sub-section upon republicanism in the USA:
United States[edit]
Main article:
Republicanism in the United States
A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance, a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in
Federalist Paper No. 10.
This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.
[44] Also, there is evidence that contemporaries of Madison considered the meaning of the word to reflect the definition found elsewhere, as is the case with a quotation of
Benjamin Franklin taken from the notes of
James McHenry. Where the question is put forth, "a Republic or a Monarchy?"
[45]
The term
republic does not appear in the
Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee
to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic.
However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [46]
Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.[47] Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the classical liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe.
A political philosophy of republicanism that formed during the Renaissance period, and initiated by Machiavelli, was thought to have had little impact on the founders of the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s a revisionist school[citation needed] led by the likes of Bernard Bailyn began to argue that republicanism was just as or even more important than liberalism in the creation of the United States.[48] This issue is still much disputed and scholars like Isaac Kramnick completely reject this view.[49]
Unfortunately, the USA has a common ignorant tendency raise its lofty founding fathers upon a pedestal and thereby make their words and instructions as infallible dogma. No, Bradley, James Madison's continued confusing and still standing repeated erroneous instruction of defining republicanism is wrong. Bradley, you are wrong. Take heed of the more worldly and linguistically correct Benjamin Franklin who recognised the distinction for republicanism for what its core remains to be:
...a quotation of
Benjamin Franklin taken from the notes of
James McHenry. Where the question is put forth, "a Republic or a Monarchy?"
[45]
That's the correct crux of it. Not some silly and uniquely US connoting fabrication that a constitutional republic negates the form of government being a direct democracy. No, a REPRESENTATIVE (rather than that separate word's conflation with a 'republic') government negates the governance being solely determined by direct democracy.
In absolutely correct governmental theory, a republic (not having an unelected, rather an appointed head of state/monarch) may certainly have a governance by elected representatives, direct democracy, and any combination of the two. Republicanism most certainly does not and cannot discount the involvement of direct democracy. Madison was wrong. His continuing disciples (you among them bradley), as fostered by a broken US educational system, remain wrong.