What form of goverment governs the US? What are we?

brianlux

Yesterday, I posted this synopsis in another thread:

"The various forms of government can be briefly summarized as:

Monarchy or dictatorship: Rule by one (a king or emperor)
Oligarchy: Rule by a few
Democracy: Rule by a majority
Republic: Rule by law"

The way I see it we are:

Not a monarchy or dictatorship. Probably no argument there.

Not an oligarchy, at least not in theory. We have three branches of federal gov populated by more than a few members elected by the people.

Supposedly a democracy in that we are allowed to vote but sometimes that doesn't work (i.e. Al Gore).

Maybe a republic... but if we are ruled by law and the laws are written so that only a few really understand them isn't that more like an oligarchy?

So which one is the US?

Answers under 25 words will lose 10 points, answers over 500 words will be discarded and one point deducted for each grammatical and spelling error.

No, seriously, I'm curious about this.

mickeyrat

governed by majority under the rule of law.

A blend of a democratic republic. Supposed to be anyway , as I understand it.

unsung

We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, but it has somewhat turned into a democracy. In a democracy the majority rules which might sound like that is how it's supposed to be but in a majority rules world people suffer. In a CR the smallest minority group is protected and the rights of that group are defended. Of course the Founding Fathers intended the smallest minority group to be the individual.

In a democracy poll numbers push policy. In a CR, the rights of the individual trump all.

toodee

brianlux wrote:

...Maybe a republic... but if we are ruled by law and the laws are written so that only a few really understand them isn't that more like an oligarchy?

From what I've seen of laws in America (via my legal base in Australia ) it seems laws (in both countries) are not written to be understood by a few, but have evolved from a combination of the judicial system and successive Governments changing laws to suit their own needs. The reason they are so complex is a side effect of these two things. So, if I have to pick one of these definitions (and avoid the easy option of combining a couple of them ), I would say the US is a Republic.

But then again, that could also make constitutional monarchies such as Australia, Canada, and the UK republics )

aerial

America's founders wrote the Constitution so that America would be a Republic....if we could keep it ( how can we keep it when people do not even know we are a republic)....we are a nation of law.....but amendment after amendment mostly for special interest groups and big business (laws we cannot understand) has corrupted this country....has anyone ever heard Obama call this Country a Republic? It seems people major in constitutional law just to find ways to undo the constitution....Americans now ridicule the Constitution.....Sad!

fuck

I don't know why this thread seems to be simply equating democracy with majority rule. Democracy is far more complicated than that--it can be majority rule if it's done wrongly, but as Alexis de Tocqueville outlined in his Democracy in America, the American constitution set principles to help prevent a "tyranny of the majority." Unfortunately though, one of the principles he lauded was the freedom of association found in the first amendment--which doesn't necessarily exist anymore, either due to legal constraints (for instance, it's illegal to affiliate one's self with a group such as Hezbollah to such a large degree that a cable man who helped hook up their television station for someone in New York was sentenced to 6 years in prison! even though he wasn't actually in the group) OR due to the idiotic mindset of Americans buying into the two party system and having to sell their soul every election to a candidate they don't really give a shit about (or are stupid enough to give a shit about--sorry to all you Obama-lovers and arrogant Republicans reading this).

aerial

fuck wrote:

I don't know why this thread seems to be simply equating democracy with majority rule. Democracy is far more complicated than that--it can be majority rule if it's done wrongly, but as Alexis de Tocqueville outlined in his Democracy in America, the American constitution set principles to help prevent a "tyranny of the majority." Unfortunately though, one of the principles he lauded was the freedom of association found in the first amendment--which doesn't necessarily exist anymore, either due to legal constraints (for instance, it's illegal to affiliate one's self with a group such as Hezbollah to such a large degree that a cable man who helped hook up their television station for someone in New York was sentenced to 6 years in prison! even though he wasn't actually in the group) OR due to the idiotic mindset of Americans buying into the two party system and having to sell their soul every election to a candidate they don't really give a shit about (or are stupid enough to give a shit about--sorry to all you Obama-lovers and arrogant Republicans reading this).

Term limits would help...

brianlux

fuck wrote:

I don't know why this thread seems to be simply equating democracy with majority rule. Democracy is far more complicated than that--it can be majority rule if it's done wrongly, but as Alexis de Tocqueville outlined in his Democracy in America, the American constitution set principles to help prevent a "tyranny of the majority." Unfortunately though, one of the principles he lauded was the freedom of association found in the first amendment--which doesn't necessarily exist anymore, either due to legal constraints (for instance, it's illegal to affiliate one's self with a group such as Hezbollah to such a large degree that a cable man who helped hook up their television station for someone in New York was sentenced to 6 years in prison! even though he wasn't actually in the group) OR due to the idiotic mindset of Americans buying into the two party system and having to sell their soul every election to a candidate they don't really give a shit about (or are stupid enough to give a shit about--sorry to all you Obama-lovers and arrogant Republicans reading this).

Things are not what they seem or are said to be. (That was more or less my cryptic point.)

catefrances

corporatocracy.

unsung

It's a single party authoritarian system that exists under the guise of a choice between two parties because smaller parties have "no chance of winning".

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

It's a single party authoritarian system that exists under the guise of a choice between two parties because smaller parties have "no chance of winning".

so your only option is armed conflict via revolution. Get to it with your militia.

unsung

We are changing it from within. I do not advocate violence, I'm sorry you feel it is the way to accomplish your goals.

brianlux

mickeyrat wrote:

unsung wrote:

It's a single party authoritarian system that exists under the guise of a choice between two parties because smaller parties have "no chance of winning".

so your only option is armed conflict via revolution. Get to it with your militia.

unsung may be right, and that single party, I believe to be the corporatocratarians catefrances mentioned. So I say let's take up Jimi Hendrix' suggestion and get an army together and march down the streets, not with guns but, ahh, electric guitars! Look out baby, we're comin' to git ya!

Sorry- it's my cryptic philosophy week.

Cosmo

aerial wrote:

Term limits would help...

...
The only continuity that would exist in government if term limits became law... the lobbyists. If you want lobbyists to draft legislation, then, terms limits on all government offices and no restrictions on corporate interests are for you.
...
Besides, Term Limits are already in place... it's called the 'Ballot Box'. Everyone wants Term Limits on the other guy's ballot, never on their guy. If you quit voting the same person into office every election... you have Term Limits.
And if you want more than two parties... don't vote for the person with the (R) next to his/her name anymore.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, but it has somewhat turned into a democracy. In a democracy the majority rules which might sound like that is how it's supposed to be but in a majority rules world people suffer. In a CR the smallest minority group is protected and the rights of that group are defended. Of course the Founding Fathers intended the smallest minority group to be the individual.

In a democracy poll numbers push policy. In a CR, the rights of the individual trump all.

...
Originally, the Constitution had the House of Representatives deciding who'll sit it the Senate, right? The Founding Fathers also wanted the government to be run by the educated, landowning, tax paying people who had most at stake in government. The All Men Created Equal were all white, male land owners who paid taxes.
To pretend that our founding Fathers believed in equality for everyone... the poor, the illiterate, the indigenous, the slaves... is really an insult to them. They lived in a world where these things were realities. A new born nation should not be left for the uneducated, unwashed populous because the truth is, they have no idea on how to govern.
That is why the Electoral College was created when the Nation was merely 25 years old. To address the the need to elect their leader by a number of electors, overseen both both Houses of Congress.
...
The Constitution is a living document, intended, by our Founding Fathers, to adapt to changing social environments. that is the true beauty of the document and the brilliance of foresight of the men whom created it.

Cosmo

brianlux wrote:

Monarchy or dictatorship: Rule by one (a king or emperor)
Oligarchy: Rule by a few
Democracy: Rule by a majority
Republic: Rule by law"

...
Brian... we are intended to be a Representative Republic in that we, the citizens of the nation, elect representatives of our Congressional Districts and our resident State to the Federal Legislature.
The fact is, CateFrances is correct... we are basically a nation that is governed to protect the rights of corporations in their pursuit of happiness. The Citizens United thing has put corporations on the same level as you and me regarding who gets into office to represent us.. you, me, unsung, aerial, Exxon Mobil, CitiBank, Goldman Sachs... everyday people's best's interests. Granted, Bank of America caan dwarf any amount of campaign money you contribute, thus, making the voce they listen to... but, in America's view... Bank of America are people, too.

brianlux

Cosmo wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Monarchy or dictatorship: Rule by one (a king or emperor)
Oligarchy: Rule by a few
Democracy: Rule by a majority
Republic: Rule by law"

...
Brian... we are intended to be a Representative Republic in that we, the citizens of the nation, elect representatives of our Congressional Districts and our resident State to the Federal Legislature.
The fact is, CateFrances is correct... we are basically a nation that is governed to protect the rights of corporations in their pursuit of happiness. The Citizens United thing has put corporations on the same level as you and me regarding who gets into office to represent us.. you, me, unsung, aerial, Exxon Mobil, CitiBank, Goldman Sachs... everyday people's best's interests. Granted, Bank of America caan dwarf any amount of campaign money you contribute, thus, making the voce they listen to... but, in America's view... Bank of America are people, too.

Yes, thank you Cosmo (and Cate). This is the definition I was looking for but couldn't find the right words for.

chadwick

Oligarchy: Rule by a few
the elite, the 1%ers

it is smoke & mirrors & a great line of bullshit, smirks & grins


it's all a fucking joke, ladies & gentlemen, & has been for a very long, long time

the elite have us enslaved, we work for them. they do not any longer work for us. they own us

anymore, we vote in the best of the worst

chadwick

gimmesometruth27

i don't know what we call our system these days. but it is very hypocritical of us to be going around the world installing democracy when the democratic process in our own country is fucked and doesn't work at all.

how can the minority party in congress have so much control?

we have 80 members of the tea party holding the entire government hostage.

these people represent about 15% of the population and they have ground the government to a halt.

our system is a piece of shit.

brianlux

It really is the shits these days and nobody seems to have a viable solution.

In his blog today, James Howard Kunstler referred to our leaders as "clownigarchs ". I don't read Kunstler as often as I used to but today's blog was one of those entries I refer to as a "Kunstler Classic":

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/creepily-close/