This comment on the republic vs. democracy thread struck me as worth noting, because the errors in it seem to me to be pretty common. Recall that in the thread I was arguing that it’s just fine to call Georgia (the one whose capital is Atlanta, not Tbilisi) a “democracy,” and not just a “republic” (though the latter is fine, too). The commenter responds:
References to “republican government” occur twice in the federal constition; the word democratic never. Words do matter and the writers of the Constitution were consumnate rhetoricians. I’m curious if all those dumping on the Georgia legislature were as dismissive of George P. Fletcher’s screed Our Secret Constitution which is essentially nothing more than an extended “liberal” argument that Abraham Lincoln crafted a revolutionary reworking of Constitutional interpretation purely by getting the citizenry to think of themselves as a “nation” rather than a “republic”. As I remember, this 2001 book was very well-received by therepublic’snation’s intelligentsia.
1. Let’s begin with the Constitution. Whatever the Framers’ rhetorical gifts, the usage in the Constitution does not dispose of what constitutes standard usage today. We have a Defense Department, not a Defence Department, notwithstanding the Constitution’s reference to “defence.” We would normally speak of Justice Scalia, not Judge Scalia, even though the Constitution speaks only of “Judges of the Supreme Court” (except the Chief, who is called “the Chief Justice”). In fact, the Associate Justices have been called Justices throughout the nation’s history, notwithstanding the constitutional label of “Judge.”
2. But beyond this, that the Constitution uses one term doesn’t mean that it’s the only possible term. That the states are supposed to have a “Republican Form of Government” doesn’t mean that the government can only be labeled “republican,” and not “democratic.” (There’s only one such reference to “republican government” in the Constitution, by the way, not two.) The Commonwealth of Virginia can still be a commonwealth even though the Constitution calls it a state; “state” and “commonwealth” aren’t mutually exclusive, and neither are “republican” and “democratic” (my original post provides evidence for that).
3. What’s more, look carefully at the Constitutional guarantee, in light of the history of that era. As I mentioned in my original post, “Indeed, in the early years of the Constitution, many states were republican but not democratic, in the sense that they were governed by only a subset of the adult citizenry (even setting aside the fact that blacks and women were generally excluded).” That might have been why the Republican Guarantee Clause guarantees only republican government. But that some states at the time might have been republican but not democratic doesn’t preclude the possibility that Georgia today is both republican and democratic.
4. Now let’s move on to the insinuation of supposed hypocrisy — the supposed reaction to Fletcher’s Our Secret Constitution. I can confidently say that not all the people who are condemning the Georgia legislators (not the legislature, just the legislators who’ve signed on to the ill-advised resolution) were as dismissive of Fletcher’s book, and that for a good reason: Probably very few of them read Fletcher’s book. For all I know it might have been a good book, or a bad one; it might even have been relatively successful as such books go; but even if it was successful, that would just mean that some thousands or even tens of thousands of people read it. Chances are that most commenters on the subject hadn’t read it, or even heard about it. I certainly haven’t read it.
5. Likewise, on to “As I remember, this 2001 book was very well-received by the republic’s nation’s intelligentsia.” Really? It might well have been well-received by some readers, but I’m pretty sure that they too form only a tiny part of the “nation’s intelligentsia.” Not having read the book, I have no idea what the relationship of the book is to the question of whether it’s proper to call the state of Georgia a “republic.” But, like most books, it doubtless reached only a very small part of the nation’s intelligentsia; and only a tiny part of it actually publicly registered any opinion on the subject. (I can say that it has gotten 49 citations in Westlaw-accessible legal journals, not bad but hardly the mark of a book that has reached a vast chunk of at least the legal intelligentsia.) What on earth is the relevance of this dig to the subject at hand?
Folks, especially conservative folks: You can do better. I want you to do better. I want conservative ideas (well, some conservative ideas, but more conservative ideas than liberal ones) to win, and that’s more likely if conservatives make sensible, thoughtful arguments. Empty accusations of supposed hypocrisy on the part of the intelligentsia, coupled with unintentional self-parodies of ancestor worship, just aren’t going to cut it.
cboldt says:
– not democratic, in the sense that they were governed by only a subset of the adult citizenry … –
April 9, 2010, 8:45 pmIs close to 100% “right to vote” a necessary attribute in order to warrant the label “democracy?”
newrouter says:
so “some” people were involved thus “undemocratic”. the cat and dog vote wasn’t sanction either(see peta). jeez let’s all go “libertiod” chasing stupid arguments to their stupid ends.
April 9, 2010, 8:48 pmShelbyC says:
Well, I’m not sure it’s a bad idea to push the label “Republic”. It seems that the label “Democracy” is pushed pretty often to promote the idea that the majority has an inherient right to impose its will on the others, and that acts of the government are an exercise of that right.
April 9, 2010, 8:49 pmSara says:
Last line is hilarious, especially “unintentional parodies of ancestor worship.” Ha.
April 9, 2010, 8:49 pmChris Travers says:
Here’s what I think is going on:
“Republican Party” and “Democratic Party” are both labels which to some extent carry with them a notion of the ideals regarding governmental structure. At least in name, the Republicans believe in republican government while the Democrats believe in democratic government.
The current Chief Justice (whom the resolution is aimed at) was appointed by a Democrat. The Republicans control the legislature. So this is a nice way of trying to send a message that “There’s no place for your kind in these parts.” (“Your kind” referring to political party.)
On one level, this is just silly. On another, it’s just partisan politics at it’s worst. But what else is new?
April 9, 2010, 8:53 pmSteve says:
The phrase “words matter” is a dead-certain giveaway that some utterly pedantic point is being made. And I don’t mean the best sort of pedantry, either.
April 9, 2010, 9:02 pmCharleyCarp says:
I commented in the other thread. The federal government has limits — whatever one things of what CJ Marshall made of the N&P clause in M’Cullough v. Maryland* or the Commerce Clause in Gibbons and beyond. State governments have no such limits. They can do anything they want, except inasmuch as they might violate either a person’s rights under the federal constitution or a person’s rights under a state constitution, and there’s some means of providing a remedy for the violation.** And whether or not Georgia is a “republic” would be determined by its present constitution which, if you look at the opening sections I quoted in the other thread, is about as democratic as one might want to be.
In our constitutional convention in the early 1970s, it was proposed that Montana adopt a parliamentary system. It didn’t carry, but I don’t think it can seriously be argued that this would have affronted the federal constitution.
* I like to suggest that people read Luther Martin’s oral argument in that case — the excerpts in his recent bio are sufficient.
** There are plenty of gaps in enforceability.
April 9, 2010, 9:03 pmmetro11 says:
I agree with Prof. Volokh.
I’ve seen this odd distinction made by others, i.e., that reference to a “republic” as opposed to a “democracy” conveys some type of extra good quality.
What the Georgia legislature and others who follow this theme seem to forget is that there is more than one meaning of “democracy.” It can mean direct democracy like in a New England town council composed of all the citizens. But it also mean the American form of government: a republican democracy – where representatives, er, represent groups of individuals.
“Democracy” on the national and state level has become a short-hand for “republican democracy.” So, although perhaps the Georgia legislature is technically correct that Georgia is a republican democracy, it’s a rather pedantic, unnecessary point – and certainly not a needed subject of legislation.
I suppose it’s awkward that our two political parties are called the Democratic and Republican parties. I would imagine this whole “debate” begins and ends there, i.e., the need to root for the name of your own team (i.e., Republican).
April 9, 2010, 9:13 pmnewrouter says:
we have a representative democracy with checks on each branch of gov’t.
April 9, 2010, 9:14 pmwhen a party finds their cause is in not representing the people who elected then bad things happen.
Arthur Kirkland says:
April 9, 2010, 9:29 pmPatrick says:
The resolution leaves out the most important differences between a republic and a democracy.
A republic has greater industrial production and can support a stronger military, whereas a democracy has greater economic efficiency and higher penalties for going to war.
April 9, 2010, 9:31 pmDangerMouse says:
I’ve never heard of this issue before.
The only thing I can think of is that it’s a reaction to Democrats who would use the name of their political party to imply that Republicans are anti-democratic, elitists, etc. But I don’t think I’ve ever really heard of anyone taking it seriously. There’s nothing wrong with the name of the Republican Party.
It strikes me as accepting the moronic notion that “framing” can mean everything. I’m not sure what else this is supposed to get at.
April 9, 2010, 9:36 pmMike Hansberry says:
usage in the Constitution does not dispose of what constitutes standard usage today
I pray that the converse is true.
Is respecting a preposition or a verb?
http://constitutioncenter.org/ncc_edu_Respecting_Freedom_of_Speech.aspx
While the drafters of the GA resolution could have done a better job in getting their point across, their point is not without merit. The way words are used today ought not change the meaning of the Constitution, nor should equivocation go unchallenged.
April 9, 2010, 9:37 pmFederal Farmer says:
I love Civ too!
April 9, 2010, 9:40 pmSandy MacHoots says:
I want conservative ideas (well, some conservative ideas, but more conservative ideas than liberal ones) to win, and that’s more likely if conservatives make sensible, thoughtful arguments.
That hasn’t been the Democratic strategy, so what makes you think that it would work for Republicans? Just what effect did “sensible thoughtful arguments” have on either side of the Health Care bill?
April 9, 2010, 9:49 pmEugene Volokh says:
Mike Hansberry: There’s no equivocation, and there’s no attempt to change the meaning of the constitution. The Constitution still provides that the federal government shall guarantee to the states a republican form of government. That doesn’t prevent Georgia from being a democracy (specifically, a representative democracy).
April 9, 2010, 9:59 pmtexasfox82 says:
would it then be necessary for a “republic” to control which of its citizens is allowed to vote to keep the masses from becoming a “mobacracy”?
unlimited democracy is just as terrible in its own way as is absolute tyranny.
April 9, 2010, 10:11 pmanomie says:
Do you really think anything would be different except for the names if the two major parties were still the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists?
April 9, 2010, 10:13 pmEugene Volokh says:
Texasfox82: Fortunately, Georgia is not an “unlimited” democracy, and the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court was not for a moment suggesting that it was. At the same time, along pretty much all the states since the early 1800s, Georgia does not impose any property qualifications for voting. If you think that makes Georgia a “mobacracy,” I’d like to hear details, but suffice it to say that the American judgment has been in favor of pretty much universal adult citizen suffrage (subject to race and sex constraints that have fortunately been removed by constitutional amendment) for about 200 years.
April 9, 2010, 10:19 pmHarvey says:
In 1789 the contest was between our Republic and the world full of monarchies. The Constitution prohibits any state from becoming a monarchy, nothing more. (Note to prohibition against titles of nobility as well.) The Founders knew of direct village democracy as a form of government, but no one could have considered it feasible for a state, so that was not the intent of the clause.
April 9, 2010, 10:28 pmcboldt says:
– suffice it to say that the American judgment has been in favor of pretty much universal adult citizen suffrage (subject to race and sex constraints that have fortunately been removed by constitutional amendment) for about 200 years. –
April 9, 2010, 10:30 pmWest’s Encyclopedia of American Law from Answers.com
texasfox82 says:
I don’t know if i can provide those details. Mob can be harsh word to call a group of people. I know also that i should read more on what you’ve written about rational ignorance in voting to help me come to a better conclusion here. I just think that many voters don’t consider what their actions will do to the whole of our country, and yet focus on how exactly they will themselves be both affected and effected by their votes.
In my very humble opinion, and maybe i’m overly influenced by Heinlein here, is that people would appreciate better what they have were they required to earn it, most especially when it comes to voting.
April 9, 2010, 10:36 pmJoseph Slater says:
Bring back the Whigs!
April 9, 2010, 10:36 pmMike Hansberry says:
Eugene Volokh:
A) I agree there was no equivocation on your part, but equivocation is a frequently employed tactic in the cultural war. And while the words republic and democracy have quite a bit of overlap, especially as used today, those words are not perfectly interchangeable as evidenced by the distinction you make in your 3rd point of the OP.
B)
But does the Constitution prevent Georgia from being a pure democracy such as in Madison’s words “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” ?
April 9, 2010, 10:43 pmFederal Farmer says:
It strikes me that many here seem to think that the US was a republic because we didn’t have universal suffrage (which we still don’t have, btw). I don’t get that.
Maybe I slept through civics class, but I thought that the US was a Republic because the President and Senators were not popularily elected.
Over the last 200 years, we have grown more sure of the popular wisdom and have seen fit to introduce an increasing level of democracy into our political system.
Good idea or not, I think the jury is still out. But I do think people that insist a republic is immune to becoming tyrannical are fooling themselves. If the king is one tyrant and the ‘mob’ 3000 tyrants, then why can’t the few we send to congress become tyrants?
April 9, 2010, 10:57 pmHal Jordan says:
The US is a republic because we elect people to act on our behalf instead of putting every little decision up for a popular vote, as would be the case in a “pure” democracy.
April 9, 2010, 11:18 pmEugene Volokh says:
Mike Hansberry: (1) I’m against equivocation, in the sense of “the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, esp. in order to mislead or hedge.” But the Georgia Chief Justice wasn’t equivocating, nor were any of the defenders of her usage. Nor do I recall any other instances in which the challenged usage — “democracy” to mean “representative democracy” as opposed to “pure democracy” — has been used to mislead (or even to hedge).
(2) The scope of the Guarantee Clause isn’t well-established, partly because the Supreme Court has held that it isn’t judicially enforceable, so we haven’t had much precedent on it. But I’m pretty sure that Georgia is not likely to try to be a pure democracy in the sense of having all governmental decisions made by popular vote. That just isn’t a viable option given the size and complexity of modern state government. But, yes, if it does try this and if the consequence is domestic disorder and mass oppression, the federal government can certainly step in.
April 9, 2010, 11:22 pmNoah says:
When “Congress shall make no law” in the First Amendment actually means no laws not some laws, give me a call.
April 9, 2010, 11:24 pmwolfefan says:
Hi Joseph Slater –
A pleasure to oblige, my friend…
http://www.modernwhig.org/
April 9, 2010, 11:25 pmBecky says:
The debate seems moot to me. I don’t know that we have either a republic or democracy. What do you call a system of government where the only purpose for elections are to give an image of legitimacy for politicians and lobbyists to devise and carry out the real business?
April 9, 2010, 11:33 pmMike Hansberry says:
Eugene Volokh: I do not attribute any bad motives on the Chief Justice’s part and it seems to me the resolution was overkill if it was meant only to correct that one use of the word democracy in an otherwise well written speech. It is difficult to see how separation of powers could be the bedrock of a democracy if by that one meant a pure democracy. But it is easy to see how separation of powers would be the bedrock of a republic, in fact Fed 10 says much the same thing, so on that score the CJ seems to be in agreement with Madison. I do not follow Georgia politics, so do not know if there was something else going on(i.e. anger at a particular decision, etc.)
That said, the distinction between the words should not be glossed over even though this seems to be more of a cultural war/political issue rather than a legal issue right now as we have not reached the stage where personal security or the rights of property have been taken away, nor do any states have anything near a pure democracy.
The deferrence SCOTUS showed to the legislative branch in Kelo demonstrates that even in a constitutional republic with well established separation of powers the protections of the right of property can weaken when the courts think more along the lines of “democracy” rather than “republic” as those concepts are laid out in Fed 10. If judges come to believe that the popular will as expressed through Congress or a state or local governemnt must prevail over the property rights of the minority, the protections afforded by the separation of powers will have failed and the result will be the same as in a pure democracy where the majority is free to vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority.
April 10, 2010, 12:59 amdearieme says:
The US is an elective monarchy. The UK is a crowned republic. There seems to be no need for the word “democracy” except perhaps in Switzerland?
April 10, 2010, 2:11 amneimoller says:
uh oh. the repubicans are leaving dangermouse behind.
April 10, 2010, 3:39 amTim says:
Perhaps my dictionary says different things, but “representative democracy” is a contradiction.
“Democracy” is a system of government rule by the people–all of the people. Referring to a “republic” or a “democratic republic” as a democracy strikes me as improper. Even if the common usage today of the word “democracy” is a form of government similar to ours, where representatives are democratically elected, this still strikes me as incorrect. “Democratic” is not the same as “democracy.”
A “republic,” on the other hand, need not even be “democratic” in nature, although ours unquestionably has democratic methods of choosing representatives.
I suspect, as the resolution did, that this was intentional by the framers. I don’t approve of their methods of asserting it, but I do think that their basic reason for doing so was correct. No state government in this country is a “democracy,” although it’s arguable that methods like the one used in Proposition 8 reek of the democracy that the framers feared.
April 10, 2010, 4:51 amNick says:
Paul Auster made the point in his book Hand to Mouth that America’s a republic, not a democracy. And he hates Republicans and wants them to die. So this is bipartisan pedantry.
He’s not a pedant about it when it would get in the way of making a point against his opponents, though.
April 10, 2010, 4:58 amdhlii says:
I find this entire debate diminishes the normally high quality of this blog.
Neither the term “republic” nor “democracy” are accurately used either in common speech today, or by our founders – fine.
But all too much of the rest of this is over whether words have any meaning – are we really prepared to go there ?
I will accept that our founders used words differently than we do, that they were as likely as we are today to misuse them, and that the constitution is not god’s revealed truth passed to us through our founders. Does that mean we should ignore the past ?
The propositions behind the semantics are meaningful. How far are we willing to go toward that version of democracy where governance is the desires of the majority of citizens ? Labels aside that is not what our founders intended. The existence of any constitutional constraints on government strongly implies that the question of limits on the powers of the majority and government are important – something poorly grasped by our politicians regardless of label.
April 10, 2010, 7:12 amNumerous commentors rant at the influence of special interests. But the problem of special interests pales in comparison to those of true democracy.
It may be true that in the fight over the meaning of democracy, no politician or scholar is advocating real democracy, but it is also true that the argument is more than semantics. Those fighting for the term republic have a distinctly different view of the role of government than those fighting for democracy. Further the trend towards greater democracy has and continues to alter this country in ways both positive and negative.
The words represent ideas and ideals. They are standins for the fight between freedom and equality – and maybe the argument would be better using those words. Those who bandy the word democracy freely – particularly those that seek to expand democracy, are seeking to shift the balance between freedom and equality towards equality. Just as those complaining about the use of democracy are (usually) seeking greater freedom at the expense of greater equality.
Finally, Liberals do not grasp that the cost of greater equality is always in lost liberty, and conservatives fail to recognize that “standing athwart history yelling stop” is not liberalism’s anti-thesis, nor is it an ideology.
neimoller says:
EV, have I told you lately that I love you?
April 10, 2010, 7:42 amClaritas says:
I agree with Prof. Volokh’s point that there is nothing in current usage that prevents a state from being both a democracy and a republic.
But his analysis of the republican form of government clause is too facile. To many in 1787-8, a republican form of government was inconsistent with a democratic form of government, not somehow a subset of the more general category of “democracy.” As a result, the original meaning of the republican form of government clause required the federal government to prevent states from becoming democracies.
For examples of the distinction between republics and democracies in 1789, see John Adams’ concept of mixed republican government where “the people” would share in only one branch of government, to prevent degeneration of the polity into anarchy (classical republicans thought democracies inevitably became anarchic and then tyrannic); or Madison’s concept of an extended republic that would affirmatively frustrate rule by popular factions (i.e. majorities) by leading factions to cancel each other out and allow rule by aristocratic leaders who could represent the public good instead of popular interests.
In general usage in 1789, “democrat” was an epithet, a synonym for mob rule. Both Shays’ Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion were attributed to people in western MA and western PA becoming too democratic. In the course of suppressing the Whisky Rebellion, George Washington denounced the democratic-republican societies that had sprung up in PA, linking them to the rebellion. The most predominant concept of republican government at the time was probably rule by the independently virtuous, of whom the exemplar was the gentleman farmer. This kind of government was inconsistent with democracy, or rule by all the people; it was intended to prevent the excesses of both monarchy and democracy, as those terms were understood.
This is not to say that the terms have not changed meaning in the past two hundred years. Over time, people realized that the people were not a mob, and could safely make political judgments and exercise political power. The development of a party system probably helped that along. As that happened, the terms “republic” and “democracy” essentially became synonyms. But history should not be conscripted in support of Prof. Volokh’s argument, when it simply does not fit.
April 10, 2010, 8:38 amBiolawguy says:
Some still seem to be conflating this issue with the “directness” of democracy. That seems entirely tangential to the core question of whether there are absolute limits on the power of any government.
If our rights our truly unalienable and utterly independent of anyone’s opinion or will, then any kind of government is simply a means to help secure those ends…and thus the franchise, mechanisms, etc. should all be whatever proves to best secure those rights for all.
So if too small a franchise is leading to elitist/oligarchical oppression, it should be expanded; BUT if too large a franchise is leading to socialistic populism, it should arguably be constricted (indeed this was an early rationale for limiting the vote to property owners, or creditors…both of whom at various colonial times had had their rights trampled by disgruntled less-wealthy majorities).
April 10, 2010, 8:44 amOctavian says:
Anyone who suggests that a Republic is immune to tyranny is an idiot. However, the Republican structure erected by the Founding Fathers was intended to provide firewalls against one particular faction taking over the entire federal government. (Kind of like bulkheads on a ship or boat.) Thus, only the lower house was given to the people via direct election (and we all know that “people” was not universally inclusive in the late 18th century). Only the upper house was given to the states (Senators selected by state legislatures). The Presidency was given to this country’s elites (via the electors). Perhaps an elitest could appeal to popular passions, or a populist could sell out to elitists, but in the end there would have been an upper legislative house ensuring that elitist or populist passions did not overrun states’ rights and federalism.
Unfortunately, what has happened is that the “elitist” faction has taken over the entire federal government thanks to the amendment permitting the direct election of Senators. Both houses of Congress are now the domain of the wealthy regardless of partisan affiliation and I daresay that the present and recent occupants of the White House are nothing more than sock puppets for competing elitist factions in this country. Expanding democracy to other branches of government via direct election has only made this country more amenable to takeover by a single elitist faction, which simply buys its way into Congress or the Presidency. No other faction such as the states are able to check the elitist faction in this country because the states no longer have a proverbial seat at the federal government given the direct election of Senators and the people are “powerless” because they are easily bought off just like the Roman citizens were bought off in Ancient Rome with free bread and circuses. Thus, Federal Farmer’s last point has been proven.
April 10, 2010, 9:06 amDM says:
Appeals to dictionaries are irrelevant when they are the wrong dictionaries.
How about instead of using modern dictionaries where the late 19th century political science definitions/terms-of-art have taken hold we instead go back in time far enough to where a dictionary likely contained the understanding of the American people at the time of ratification, eh?
Earliest example I can get that’s readily available online is Noah Webster’s 1828 First Edition. [http://1828.mshaffer.com/]
REPUB’LIC, n. [L. respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]
1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.
2. Common interest; the public. [Not in use.]
DEMOCRACY, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.
As you can see, there’s certainly a distinction to be made. Generally speaking then, it’s clear that our institutions are republican and not democratic (we certainly don’t take a statewide or national vote on every question of legislative or executive power, which a democratic form of government would require). Disregarding the initiative or referendum processes, it’s only our elections of representatives which are democratic.
April 10, 2010, 9:09 amMark Field says:
I believe the word you want is “orthogonal”.
The problem is that using the old definition won’t communicate to modern audiences. Prof. Volokh’s point is that the word “democracy” is not today used in the narrow sense of “direct” of “pure” democracy, but instead (and possibly even in the 1790s) includes “constitutional” democracy.
As a result, someone who demands we use the term “republic” instead simply isn’t communicating; the listeners don’t hear a difference because there isn’t one any more (if, indeed, there ever was). Citing to an older dictionary won’t solve that.
If someone today does want to communicate some distinction, they need to be more precise about it. Seems simple enough, particularly since some of the distinctions I’ve seen claimed (e.g., majority rule) are false anyway. At least then we’d know what we’re arguing about.
April 10, 2010, 10:35 amaggie esq says:
At the risk of side tracking by bringing up a politically charged topic, haven’t we in recent years been actively involved in spreading “democracy” abroad, particularly in Iraq? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. The point being that using the term “democracy” to describe participation of the people, even in the form of selecting representatives for the republic, is not uncommon for either major U.S. political party.
I think it’s clear that the Georgia legislators were merely attempting to belittle the Chief Justice for partisan purposes. However, one (perhaps the sole) positive result from this is that it provides an opportunity for a discussion of how our goverment actually works and the role democracy plays for us. For readers of this board that will be nothing new, but I can assure you it will be educational for other folks – including those who attend our next extended family gathering.
Now about the Electoral College and how the President isn’t chosen by majority of the popular vote………….
April 10, 2010, 10:53 amThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Wishful Linguistics says:
[...] commenter on one of the republic vs. democracy threads writes, Perhaps my dictionary says different things, but “representative democracy” is [...]
April 10, 2010, 11:33 amtroll_dc2 says:
Is it not more important that the ideas that prevail are good ones? You seem to be assuming that conservative ideas tend to be better than liberal ones. What is the basis for that assumption? (And, while I am at it, what makes an idea liberal or conservative besides the ideology of the person who espouses it?)
April 10, 2010, 12:15 pmOrenWithAnE says:
He’s spend the better part of the last decade explaining his rationale for his brand of conservatism on this blog. It is safe to say that his opinion is that conservative ideas are better than liberal ones and that his reasons are very well explained (and would make for a hilarious confirmation fight if (pigs fly and) Romney appoints him to the 9CA).
There is a set of principles that have been denominated conservative in our current parlance. It is not controversial that many ideas can be loosely classified based on how much they import from these principles.
April 10, 2010, 2:40 pmleo marvin says:
Given the history of Republicans trying to tinker with the name of the Democratic Party to imply Democrats aren’t “Democratic,” this passes ironic.
April 10, 2010, 7:02 pmcboldt says:
See Direct Communist Democracy. THis resembles the platform of the Democratic party, and involves a full embrace of democracy.
April 11, 2010, 10:50 am