natedog
Member
My history teacher cites that because the US does not have a monarch it is a republic, and that because the government is layered at the national, state, and local level, it is also "federal". How on track is he?
Agree or disagree: The US is a federal republic
- Thread starter natedog
- Start date
- Status
Hkmp5sd
Member
It's a Republic.
Remember this little saying?
Remember this little saying?
ojibweindian
Member
The United States began life as a Constitutional Republic, with federal powers being greatly restricted. However, since Lincoln, our Constitutional Republic has been bastardized, with a seemingly exponential increase in bastidarzation by our elected morons, and our moronic electorate, since the middle 20th century.
ojibweindian
Member
Another thing, ask your teacher if the former U.S.S.R. was a republic; Stalin, Lenin, et al were not monarchs. Also, ask her if China is a republic. No monarchy there, either.
A pure republic is one level of elected government, with the government run by elected officials, and no real safeguards against abuse. Perhaps "Corrupt Constitutional Federal Republic" would be a better description for the U.S.
I suppose you can call 2+ layer governments simply "republics", just as a square can be called a rectangle, etc.
I suppose you can call 2+ layer governments simply "republics", just as a square can be called a rectangle, etc.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
The original intent was to have STATES that joined into a constitutional republic. The powers of the federal government were limited. The states were then to compete against each other on a level playing field, which in turn would promote liberty. What we have now is as stated above - the feds have usurped almost all of the states' rights and regulate all the activities of daily life, from low-flush toilets to what kind of gun you can own (back on topic 
).
).BHPshooter
Member
As I understand it and as I describe it, the United States is supposed to function as a Constitutionally-limited Democratic Republic.
Whether or not it actually behaves as such is another matter for another discussion.
Wes
Whether or not it actually behaves as such is another matter for another discussion.
Wes
romulus
Member
They are republics. That doesn't prevent them from being tyrannical.
longeyes
member
Nominal republics only. And the USSR had an elaborate and advanced Constitution.
Of course words and actions are two different things.
Of course words and actions are two different things.
B
boofus
Guest
I think it used to be a republic but now it's more of a two party totalitarian regime where the dems and repubs just take turns screwing over the citizenry.
jimpeel
Member
Here is all you need to know on the subject:
What I am waiting for is the Mother of all Lawsuits wherein we take the government to court for violation of Article IV, Section 4; as social programs are Socialist in nature and fly in the face of Republican ideals.
What I am waiting for is the Mother of all Lawsuits wherein we take the government to court for violation of Article IV, Section 4; as social programs are Socialist in nature and fly in the face of Republican ideals.
I think most of us here use republic (def 2), while your teacher uses republic (def. 1).
As for federal, it originally did not mean "national government" but "layered government." We do have a federal republic (or federated republic) ... or more accurately, a constitutional federated republic. The founders did not mean federal the way we commonly use it today.
From www.dictionary.com
Republic n.
1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
a. political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
Federal adj.
1. Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.
2. Of or constituting a form of government in which sovereign power is divided between a central authority and a number of constituent political units.
3. Of or relating to the central government of a federation as distinct from the governments of its member units.
4. Favorable to or advocating federation: The senator's federal leanings were well known.
5. Relating to or formed by a treaty or compact between constituent political units.
6. Federal
a. Of, relating to, or supporting Federalism or the Federalist Party.
b. Of, relating to, or loyal to the Union cause during the American Civil War.
7. often Federal Of, relating to, or being the central government of the United States.
8. Federal Relating to or characteristic of a style of architecture, furniture, and decoration produced in the United States especially in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and characterized by adaptations of classical forms combined with typically American motifs.
As for federal, it originally did not mean "national government" but "layered government." We do have a federal republic (or federated republic) ... or more accurately, a constitutional federated republic. The founders did not mean federal the way we commonly use it today.
From www.dictionary.com
Republic n.
1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
a. political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
Federal adj.
1. Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.
2. Of or constituting a form of government in which sovereign power is divided between a central authority and a number of constituent political units.
3. Of or relating to the central government of a federation as distinct from the governments of its member units.
4. Favorable to or advocating federation: The senator's federal leanings were well known.
5. Relating to or formed by a treaty or compact between constituent political units.
6. Federal
a. Of, relating to, or supporting Federalism or the Federalist Party.
b. Of, relating to, or loyal to the Union cause during the American Civil War.
7. often Federal Of, relating to, or being the central government of the United States.
8. Federal Relating to or characteristic of a style of architecture, furniture, and decoration produced in the United States especially in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and characterized by adaptations of classical forms combined with typically American motifs.
bountyhunter
member
Agree or disagree: the US government is a coin-operated vending machine that invariably ends up being run by lying hypocrites who claim to be trying to improve things but are actually shoveling pork into their home state as fast as they can.
T.Stahl
Member
Living in a Federal Republic myself, I'd agree that the United States of America are a Federal Republic. No monarch or dictator, representatives are elected, the individual states seem to have a lot of legislative independence (e.g. regarding gun laws and taxes).
swifter
Member
The US is not a republic: Lincoln destroyed the republic to "save the Union..."
We have also, IMHO, degenerated into democracy, and will degenerate further
.
Properly, our form of government is a "Kakistocracy" . Its in the Unabridged, in case you wondered...
"Governance by the worst..."
Lawyers and politicans, and both
.
Tom
We have also, IMHO, degenerated into democracy, and will degenerate further
.Properly, our form of government is a "Kakistocracy"
. Its in the Unabridged, in case you wondered... "Governance by the worst..."Lawyers and politicans, and both
.Tom
I'm doing research for my history class, so tell me if I'm right:
America is a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution protects certain inalieable human rights from being voted away by an oppressive majority, which is why we require a supermajority to change the Constitution.
We are not a mere "democracy" as that is simply mob rule.
America is a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution protects certain inalieable human rights from being voted away by an oppressive majority, which is why we require a supermajority to change the Constitution.
We are not a mere "democracy" as that is simply mob rule.
tcdrennen
Member
drjones-
Correct. In fact, if you read the Federalist Papers (and the "Antifederalist Papers", for that matter) you'll find that "Democracy" frightened the Founders far more than Monarchy did. The history of democracies until then (Greece, Rome, etc.) had proven dismal - all degenerated into civil war and anarchy anf ended in tyranny.
The Swiss Confederation was a more successful model - soveriegn cantons jealously suspicious of the 'federal' government and insisting on close oversight of its activities.
Correct. In fact, if you read the Federalist Papers (and the "Antifederalist Papers", for that matter) you'll find that "Democracy" frightened the Founders far more than Monarchy did. The history of democracies until then (Greece, Rome, etc.) had proven dismal - all degenerated into civil war and anarchy anf ended in tyranny.
The Swiss Confederation was a more successful model - soveriegn cantons jealously suspicious of the 'federal' government and insisting on close oversight of its activities.
Justin Moore
Member
That's my wet dream too jim
I don't think that lawsuit would work. Article IV Sec 4 is about States as actors, rather than as a polity. I don't think individuals or groups of individuals or even a majority in a State would have standing to sue.
Simply compare Sec. 2 to Sec. 4 within Article IV. Apply the same reasoning as to individual/collective rights interp of "the people" in the Bill of Rights. If they meant that the "U.S. shall guarantee to [the citizens of] every State... a Republican Form of government" in Sec. 4, why did they say "citizens" explicitly in Sec. 2...
Simply compare Sec. 2 to Sec. 4 within Article IV. Apply the same reasoning as to individual/collective rights interp of "the people" in the Bill of Rights. If they meant that the "U.S. shall guarantee to [the citizens of] every State... a Republican Form of government" in Sec. 4, why did they say "citizens" explicitly in Sec. 2...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked