re: The word "democracy" is mentioned no where in the US Constitution.

quote:

---

No, one of those is a government of limited rights and the other is a government of limited power.

One means power to the elites via the supposed will of the majority, while the other means power to the people.

---

Your previous post was very good, though ultimately wrong. This one is just you blatantly making up definitions. A representative Democracy doesn’t necessarily limit rights, although in practice, like any government, it does limit rights (speed limits, etc). But in our representative democracy the ability of the government to limit rights is itself limited by the Constitution.

quote:

---

Your previous post was very good, though ultimately wrong. This one is just you blatantly making up definitions. A representative Democracy doesn’t necessarily limit rights, although in practice, like any government, it does limit rights (speed limits, etc). But in our representative democracy the ability of the government to limit rights is itself limited by the Constitution.

---

The moment you call it a democracy you are limiting the rights because it's the claim that majority rules. Just because it's our so called elected officials that are the ones practicing in the democracy rather than ourselves doesn't change the fact the idea of individual rights is being removed for the will of the so called majority.

You yourself are looking at the constitution here as a document of limited rights, saying it's what limits the government, but that is backwards and makes it a document of few limited rights. The constitution doesn't say the government can do whatever it wants outside those listed rights, of which it constantly tramples on, it's supposed to only list the actual jobs they can do. Everything not listed is supposed to be off limits.

Even them making laws about drugs and such, is supposed to be added to the constitution. Look at how Alcohol was made illegal and then legal again. It wasn't some bureaucracy making it illegal with the stroke of a pen, it requires an amendment to the constitution. Now they just schedule shite and do whatever the frick they want, all in the name of "representative democracy".

frick that, I do not support that type of government at all. It's unacceptable and takes away the rights of the people to decide for themselves.

And that's why Article 4, Section 4 guarantees a republican form of government, not a democracy. If we just keep putting things on the federal level and the government is not limited outside the few listed rights and it's called ok because it's "representative democracy", then we do not have a republic.

quote:

---

The moment you call it a Republic you are limiting rights because…

So you see, a Republic is rule by the people, perhaps through representatives. The point is someone has to rule and rights will be limited.

The Constitution guarantees us certain rights, and whether or not we retain those rights depends on our voting vigilance, not on whether we use the term “Democracy”.

---

Our republic is a layered system of government where each layer is supposed to have it's own defined roles and nothing else. We are turning it from a republic into a democracy as the federal government continues to take powers and roles that were not and are not designated to them, and it's justification is "representative democracy".

AKA that because the person was elected, then whatever happens next is ok because it's democracy in action. No regard to the republic and it's levels of government at all.

It's the 9th and 10th amendments that are being ignored as they should be creating a lock on the government. But they don't.

So yes, I think it's a very distinct difference between a republic and a democracy. State governments should have more power than the federal government when it comes to domestic issues.

Rights do not come from government, they come from God. The constitution doesn't guarantee us rights, it's supposed to guarantee it will protect them and not trample on them.

The change from republic to democracy is in the limitations because the republic is that which the power to do those things comes from.

quote:

---

That’s a baseless allegation. I’m not, and have never, looked at the Constitution that way. Since I was in high school, 50 years ago, I’ve been well aware that the Constitution guarantees certain rights and allows the other rights to be circumscribed by our democratically elected representatives.

In your last three paragraphs you make the excellent point that our government is making laws that should require changes to the Constitution. You then incorrectly assert that preventing this was why the Founders established a Representative form of government. You won’t find that reason enumerated anywhere in The Federalist Papers. It was, however, the reason they gave such powers to the judicial branch. This you will find in The Federalist Papers discussed ad nauseam.

I think your very genuine concerns would be better served by you focusing less on the terminology of “Democracy” and “Republic” and more on The Commerce Clause, which is the vehicle for most of the anti-Constitutional mischief.

---

But that's how the constitution is being used, as a document of limited rights. Making changes to the constitution requires a super majority, and that's why it's ignored. It's not that the constitution doesn't prevent these things, it's that it's just not being followed. And again, democracy is eating the republic.

I'd like to fix the General Welfare clause as well. It doesn't mean anything they can spin as good. The general welfare is defined in the amendments, and then all things are applied to everyone equally, rather than it being used as a device to give special rights and privileges to specific groups.

quote:

---

A democracy is a government in which the government has no real limitations outside the supposed will of the majority. The majority is the ruling class.

---

That is not the definition of democracy, it is a cartoon version.

A democracy just means political authority ultimately comes from the people through voting. It does not mean “no limitations.” Every democracy on earth has constitutions, courts, legislatures with procedures, and protected rights that the majority cannot simply vote away on a Tuesday afternoon.

Calling “the majority” a “ruling class” is backwards too. A ruling class is a small group that holds power regardless of what the majority wants. That is the opposite of democracy. You're pretending democracy is pure direct voting on everything, but that is not how modern democratic systems work and it is not what the word means.

quote:

---

A constitutional republic is a government which has no ruling class. The governments role is limited to only roles specifically listed, and nothing else. Those roles do not require only a majority, they require a super majority to happen. The overwhelming majority of our government today is against the constitution.

---

That’s constitutional mythology dressed up as civics.

A “constitutional republic” isn’t some magic system without a ruling class. It means there’s a constitution that limits what a republic can do. The Constitution doesn’t list every possible power, it establishes broad frameworks like taxation, defense, and regulation, then leaves interpretation to elected officials and courts. That’s why Congress can pass new laws without amending the Constitution every time.

And no, ordinary legislation doesn’t require a supermajority. Supermajorities are for very specific actions like amending the Constitution, ratifying treaties, or overriding vetoes. Most laws pass by simple majority in both chambers because that’s how representative government works.

quote:

---

What we have is probably the worst of both. Where instead of representatives we elect "leaders" who then do whatever the frick they want and the only "majority" that actually matters when it comes to the limitations of their power is whatever the frick those few in power decide. More like an oligarchy.

And that's the best case even if you believe all the bullshite and ignore the extreme amounts of manipulation and flat out corruptions in our election process.

---

You’re not wrong that concentrated power and corruption are real problems, but calling that “democracy’s fault” is missing the target. What you’re describing isn’t the failure of the system’s design, it’s the failure of participation and accountability within it. Representative government only works if citizens stay engaged beyond election day, challenge corruption, and actually hold their s “leaders” to account.

The rot you’re describing isn’t proof democracy doesn’t work. It’s proof that the Constitution can’t defend itself, and no system is immune to apathy or manipulation. The answer isn’t to scrap democracy for a fantasy republic without corruption; it’s to reassert the parts of democracy we’ve let wither.

quote:

---

Simple question - is the Constitution a document of limited government, or is it a document of limited rights?

---

You frame like it has to be one or the other when it’s both.

The Constitution creates a limited government by designating specific powers and separating them between branches, but it also protects rights by limiting what that government can do to individuals. The two ideas are complementary. Limiting government is how you preserve rights, and protecting rights is how you limit government.

The problem is, a lot of people use “limited government” as a stand-in for “government I agree with.” The same document that stops Congress from establishing a religion also lets it raise armies, levy taxes, and regulate commerce.

If you think we’ve drifted into oligarchy, fine, most would agree there’s too much money and too little accountability in politics. But that’s not because the Constitution failed or because democracy went too far. It’s because we stopped demanding the system work as intended.

So yes, the Constitution limits government. It also limits the government’s ability to limit you. The balance is the entire point.