More on the founders and republics

Another of the benefits claimed by the founders for having a republic over a democracy is that republics are supposed to be free of factions. That is that partisan bickering that we see in US politics should not be happening.

Boy, were they WRONG on that one with the partisan bullshit beginning long before the ink dried on the Constitution (or they even began debating the thing).

So, this is further evidence that the founders had no fucking idea what they were doing and had basically buried themselves. That means the US has been in constitutional crisis from at least the first Continental Congress.

No wonder the place is a mess.

See also:
The Founding Fathers on Party Strife (Quotes)
The Founding Fathers & Political Parties The Origins of Today's Bitter Partisanship: The Founding Fathers

Don’t quote the Founders on republics

I have serious questions about anyone who venerated the founders, who had no fucking idea what they were doing. That’s pretty much of an understatement for anyone who has any idea of early American history. Patrick Henry had an inkling he was making a mistake when he said:

Whether this (Independence) will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people will make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable.Righteousness alone cannot exalt us as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others.

Not sure how anyone who was paying off the cost of a war would think that having another one would solve any problems. Toss in all the other issues that were left unaddressed because a bunch of hotheads wanted another war.

Anyway, their love for republics was yet another aspect of their ignorance. The Roman republic may have lasted for nearly 500 years but

Unlike the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire, the Republic was in a state of quasi-perpetual war throughout its existence. Its first enemies were its Latin and Etruscan neighbours, as well as the Gauls, who even sacked the city in 387 BC. The Republic nonetheless demonstrated extreme resilience and always managed to overcome its losses, however catastrophic…At home, the Republic similarly experienced a long streak of social and political crises, which ended in several bloody civil wars.

Toss in the French revolution would demonstrate that republics were anything but stable.

So, for all their attempts at trying to show a difference between a republic and a democracy. there probably wasn’t that much of one even in classical times,. But it sounds nice if one is starting on shaky ground.

The US is neither a republic nor a democracy

If free and fair elections on a secret ballot are one of the criteria for both systems.

Likewise, five million votes separated Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in the popular vote during the 2012 election. It would be a stretch to call the 2012 presidential election a particularly close one with a margin that large. But because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College, a shift in just three hundred thousand votes in four states would have made Romney, rather than Obama, the president. Similarly John Kerry would have defeated George Bush in the Electoral College with a shift of fewer than a hundred thousand votes in Ohio.

I want to post these results since there are people who claim to be "constitutional conservatives" who like the electoral college. I wonder how they can tolerate it when results like the one above are the norm in this system?

The only real reason it continues to exist is that it allows the duopoly ("Republicans" and "Democrats") to control the system. In fact, most electoral reforms would cut into the duopoly's system of control, which is why election reform and voting rights aren't high on the agenda.

So, when you think that the electoral college is somehow "good", just remember how much it distorts the vote.  It works both ways.  In fact, this distortion is more disturbing to me than the 2016 result was, but notice that no one talks about how the distortion of presidential election results is common in US politics.

Even among the "constitutional conservatives" who defend this bullshit.

I should also add that sham elections which are elections that are without any purpose or significance and meant purely for show are a feature of dictatorships. These elections may have choices, but they are meaningless choices which do not truly express popular opinion.  These type of elections are meant to try and establish a sense of legitimacy for an illegitimate government.

Given the results of the electoral college in distorting the popular vote, or totally negating it, one truly has to wonder why people try to establish a false distinction between republics and democracies other than many republics (e.g., USSR, German Democratic Republic, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or Democratic Republic of Congo) are totalitarian states.

In fact, tolerating sham elections and a false democracy/republic ends up creating an oligarchy.

And you can't have either a democracy or a republic without free and fair elections on a secret ballot.

What is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? (Part II)

Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians.

— Che Guevara, 1961

How the founders imagined a republic to work.

Part one was sort of a trick question since both systems embody these rules. It is non-sensical to try and distinguish between these systems in modern times.

This wasn't always the case as the Founders of the United States often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a constitution enshrining basic rights. James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.

The founders equated "democracy" with what we would call "anarchy", but they were working with ideals, not realities. 

What was critical to the American version of a republic, according to John Adams, was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend."  The rule of law is the concept where the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens which was the important factor in adopting the US Constitution.

The problem is that the founders didn't really understand republics, or perhaps were too fond of idealising them. The French philosopher who influenced the founders, Montesquieu, classified both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government in his "The Spirit of the Laws". Montesquieu was combining two very different forms of government into his concept of a republic.

This discussion should have started with the disclaimer that the modern type of "republic" itself is different from any type of state found in the classical world, or during the the concept bandied about during "the Enlightenment". The most important thing about real classical republics, they were either conquered by empires or became ones themselves. This becomes important in refuting Federalist #10: republics are not inherently stable, which was demonstrated in post-revolutionary France (the First Republic).

The reality: "We are not ze democracie, We are ze republique!"

The French demonstrated that the founders concept of republics was a ungrounded in fact at roughly the same time the Constitution was adopted.  Despite a strong guarantee of rights, the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789, the First French Republic deteriorated into the Terror and then the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Another point, The term republic originated from the writers of the Renaissance as a descriptive term for states that were not monarchies, which gives a lot of latitude. On the other hand, now one can have a constitutional monarchy that is a democracy. This is important since Democracy comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία , Demokratía, which is literally "rule of the commoners". Democracy in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. I think a lot of people who try to differentiate between democracy and republic are really thinking of oligarchy, which is indeed neither system.

So, republics turn out to be more prone to problems  despite the founders' beliefs as a comparative study of US, French, and British history post 1789 demonstrates. And democracies tend to be far more stable than the founders believed.

The upshot is that the modern definition of a republic (from Latin: res publica, "public matter") is a sovereign state which is organized with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. Presently, the term "republic" commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another basis, such as heredity or divine right. But it can even be dangerous to assume a something calling itself a republic, or democracy, truly is one (e.g., Democratic People's Republic of Korea or Democratic Republic of Congo, which both happen to be dictatorships).

While hereditary and divine right were once the defining factor in monarchies, they no longer are. United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. In other countries, the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). An elected president, with or without significant powers, became the head of state in these countries. In other words, Constitutional Monarchies tend to be democratic.

If there is any real advantage to a republic, it would have to be that it can eventually evolve.  But one has to be careful how it evolves as the French and US examples have shown.  The French revolution produced a republic that was highly factionalised and unstable.  France's transition to democracy has been a rough road. The US also has its own problems, which includes some people believing there is a "right to rebellion", which is false (US Constitution, Article III, Section iii).[1]

Likewise, the US is ridden with factionalism which can hinder governmental function.  I find it interesting that people who try to make a difference between republic and democracy usually tend to be the ones that support a crippling factionalism. In fact, I find the people who try to make that distinction don't support true republics or democracies, but are more interested in an autocratic system.

Perhaps this shows where their difference comes since the people who wish to hinder government by non-funding parrot the phrase that there is a difference between a republic and a democracy.  They are willing to stop governmental function.  On the other hand, Parliamentary democracies dissolve when they cannot pass spending bills since  in the Westminster parliamentary systems the defeat of a supply bill (one that concerns the spending of money) is seen to automatically require the government to either resign or ask for a new election, much like a no-confidence vote. A government in a Westminster system that cannot spend money is hamstrung,  which also called loss of supply.

Anyway, I worry whenever anyone tries to make a distinction between these two systems since there should be none in practise.  I would add that people who do try to make that distinction are aware of the anti-democratic nature of the US system and are comfortable with it. We should not end up with oligarchy pretending to be a republic.

But a country cannot and should not enforce political systems on others that it does not implement at home. The US needs to start living up to its self image as a democratic-republic.

[1] Which means the proper "threeper" symbol should be "III.iii" for that article and to show they are not patriots following the constitution, but people being seditious and acting unconstitutionally.

What is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? (Part I)

I'm going to start this off in two parts because I want people's opinion on which of these systems embody the following principles?

1.  A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; 
2.  The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; 
3.  Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and    
4.  A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

The rest of this will come in a later post.

Tears, Real and Fake; Tearing up the Rightwing Weepers

I came across this fascinating article about the resignation of the very naughty Republican Congressman from New York who was busted lying and trying to cheat on his wife on Craig's List.  What is it with these Republican exhibitionists anyway?  We have the shirtless Christopher Lee, the Cosmo naked centerfold Senator Scott Brown.

And we have of course the prominent public weepers on the right, for which there is no equivalent on the left, Weeper of the House John Boehner, who blubbers at the drop of a hat on cue.  This uncontrolled emotion, or at least sham emotion, from the third in line to the Presidency? (Can you imagine the criticism that she would have received if Nancy Pelosi had done that?)  And the legendary hoaxer and absolutely crazy conspiracy promoter Glenn Beck cries like a baby pretty much daily, (Beck is who other crazies on the right like Michele Bachmann claim inform the right wing majority of congress, which would explain a lot.)

Don't get me wrong; I'm enlightened enough to appreciate that it is appropriate and perfectly manly for a man to cry when the circumstances justify it.  I applaud anyone who is psychologically healthy by being in touch with their own emotions; it is a good thing. But as often as these two do it would annoy me coming from any man, woman or child, and they do it when the circumstances don't seem to justify it.  That to me smacks of manipulative, dishonest behavior.

But it seems evident to me that Boehner and Beck both cry crocodile tears, and cry them often.  I don't find a moment of their blubbering to be sincere, a completely different reaction than the one I have to the tears of honest men of any political conviction.  So it seems a perfect opportunity to test the theory of PhD candidate Leanne tenBrinke  of the Centre for the Advancement of Psychology and Law, at the University of British Columbia, published in a recent edition of Law and Human Behavior.  Here is her study, because sadly too often the media misrepresents science in their attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, so it is worthwhile to go to the source.

A More Perfect Union - Part I

"We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America." - Preamble to the US Constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution grants no special powers either to the states, to the federal government, or to the people. Rather, it establishes the general purpose for the establishing a new form of government on the North American continent and gives some of the essential goals in establishing this brilliant plan of government. The Constitution itself is divided into various articles. Each of the articles deals with a particular area. There are seven articles and 27 amendments to the Constitution. This article discusses Article I - The Legislative Branch.

"All legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives" Article I, Section 1. Congress has the sole power to legislate or to create new laws, although Congress has, over the years, increasingly allowed executive departments to create regulations which have the force of law. The courts have generally been tolerant of this, and in fact, in only three cases have they invalidated laws based on delegation of congressional authority. Congress, while having been given the authority to legislate, also has the authority to investigate what it can regulate. Congress has evolved the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents to assist it in its investigations. While many of these investigations seem to be political grandstanding, the courts have generally paid great deference to Congress' authority in this area and have rarely intervened. See: Barenblatt vs. US 360 US 109 (1959) "The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate"

Congress is composed of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is composed of two senators from every state, elected at large. (Note: Direct election of senators did not occur until the adoption of Amendment XVII in 1912.) The senate was set up to give a balancing to the larger states, whose members would otherwise overshadow the smaller states in the House of Representatives. Each house has the authority to determine its own rules and procedures, and they differ quite distinctly from each other. Debate in the House is much more regimented, with a rule being established prior to every debate that specifies the length of the debate, etc. Debate in the Senate has no time limit, and in fact, the practice of a filibuster is a way for the minority party to stall a bill in the hopes of defeating it, even if they don't have the votes to defeat it outright. While the Senate has two senators from every state, the Constitution directs that the House of Representatives be apportioned based on population, with each state guaranteed at least one member of the House of Representatives. This is especially important as the upcoming census approaches and each party will be trying to affect census data so to allow them to draw the districts for the House and therefore increase election chances for their party members.

Congress is granted certain exclusive powers. These include the power to declare war and make peace, to approve all treaties, to maintain an army and navy, to establish inferior courts to the Supreme Court, to levy taxes, to regulate commerce between the states and between foreign nations, and others. One important clause states that "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof". Article I, Section 8. This is often called the expansion clause, because it is used as legal justification for doing almost anything.

The commerce clause is often used by Congress to enact a variety of legislation. However, a couple of recent cases indicate that the Supreme Court's willingness to allow Congress do as it pleases under the stretch of the commerce clause may be coming to an end. Specifically, the Court held in United States vs. Lopez 519 US 549 (1995) that Congress could not use the commerce clause to expand federal police powers over areas traditionally governed by the states. The Court, however, in Gonzales vs. Raich 545 US 1(2005) did not continue along this line, and while not expressly overruling its holding in Lopez supra, it did indicate that the Court's opinion on this clause is in flux.

Congress also has some limits. Congress may not pass a bill of attainter, nor may it suspend the writ of habeus corpus (with a few exceptions), and Congress may not grant titles of nobility. It also must only enact a direct tax by doing so based on proportionate taxation of the states. In practice, the income tax amendment of 1916 has superseded this section.

States are also limited in Article I. States may not enter into agreements with each other without the consent of congress, they may not keep armies or troops during times of peace, and they may not go to war unless actually invaded. More importantly, they must tax the imports of each state equally, and may not tax exports except to the point needed to carry out inspection laws. States may not impede the operation of a contract. States may forbid certain clauses in a contract, but not one that is currently operative.

Article I of the Constitution establishes considerable power for Congress, if Congress decides to exercise that power. In Part II of this series, I will discuss the Executive branch, and along with that discussion, the unique relationship that has evolved with Congress, including the limits and expansion of Executive power.