The better the Democracy the better is the freedom of equality and liberty of equity of that Republic... Self-rule is the best way of a Democratic Republic; where the republic represents the group of people being represented in accordance with there will; not the will of special interest... This is why the individual vote of the people is essential for a democracy of self-rule...
- Republic, a type of organization of a state where representation of the peoples will is provided by a non biased steward of the vote on the consensus of the people's opinion ; not special interest...
- Federal republic, a federation of states with a republican form of government
- Constitutional republic, a form a government that is limited by a constitution
- Concepts of democracy in a republic - Explains democracy in a republic
Make a Big Difference
and tell them this ~
Why are the parties not made responsible for clarifying the noise their party create?
The format of disclosure should be consistent so it can be put in a data base and searched for its consistency and reliability of facts and evidence supporting their claims... The rhetoric is without dialectic distinction, so it is therefore objectively false by default from some perspective of perception...
Political Correspondence Needs To Be In The Following Format
State Issue ~ It must have ~ Solution, problem and answer ~
Statement of elements describing debate issue:
1) premise, proposition
2) purpose, motive and intent
3) impact, cause and effect
In this format it can be tracked in a database so people can see the deviations and or consistencies in the rhetoric and dialectic presented...
The Way To A Better Democratic-Republic
Monarchies are a form of government with a monarch at the head. A state that has a monarch, the monarch and royal family of a country are the ruling entity; where as a Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives, a state governed in such a way, a multiparty democracy.
Democracy might be control by organizations or groups composing majority membership: the intended extension of industrial democracy. It might be the practice or principles of social equality and demand for greater democracy. As you can see its what you make it to be...
The Constitution of the United States implied it was to be a rule by the people. Here is another perspective ~ Democracy is Not People's Rule, It is People's Judgment Jan 19, 2004 ...
Democracy is not about who rules but it is about how people are ruled. Democracy can denote either the power or complete rule by the people. Go to www.ghandchi.com/313-JudgmentEng.htm Understanding Democratic Notion: see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.
The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government or constitutional protections of individual liberties from democratic power it is possible for dissenting individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority.” An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections, which are fair both substantively and procedurally.
Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.
Art and Science for Improving the Practice of the Constitution-
VISION OF A PERFECT GOVERNANCE SYSTEM: HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY- The constitution of the United States is based on the Greek / Roman concept of democracy. The notion of democracy envisions the inclusive, selfless, civility in its practice as a governance system.
The man who wrote the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris, 25 years after he wrote it he wanted the country broken up. You know, he said in order to form a more perfect union, then he decided the union wasn't so perfect, so his attitude was, the hell with it, let's split the whole thing up and start all over, which is a pretty radical position.
The framers approved the text of the Constitution on September 15, and on September 17 all but three of the remaining delegates signed, attesting to “the unanimous consent of the States present.” This was no longer merely a compact between states, but a constitution for a new nation, recognized in the last two days when the framers adopted a preamble that began, “We, the People of the United States.”
The ideas behind the Constitution came from many of the framers, especially Madison, studied history and political philosophy. Two political theorists had great influence on the creation of the Constitution. John Locke, an important British political philosopher, had a large impact through his Second Treatise of Government (1690).
Locke argued that sovereignty resides in individuals, not rulers. A political state, he theorized, emerged from a social contract among the people, who consent to government in order to preserve their lives, liberties, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, which also drew heavily on Locke, governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”Locke also pioneered the idea of the separation of powers. The French writer Baron de Montesquieu, who was the second major intellectual influence on the Constitution, further developed the concept of a separation of powers in his treatise The Spirit of the Laws (1748). Colonial charters such as the Mayflower Compact of 1620 provided another inspiration for the Constitution. These charters seemed to give authority to the people to govern the territories to which they had migrated.
Throughout the 18th century a vigorous debate raged over whether these charters permitted self-rule or subjected the colonists to the whims of royal governors. At their most radical, the colonial charters created autonomous legislatures with broad powers.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought a fundamental change from these earlier notions in two important ways. First, they put the Constitution above legislative power—indeed, above all governmental powers.
The Constitution, particularly the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, establishes the “rule of law,” the idea that the government itself, including the president and Congress, must abide by the law. The framers also rejected a basic assumption held by many democratic theorists, including Montesquieu, that true democracy was possible only in tiny territories with small, homogeneous populations. In famous passages in The Federalist Papers, Madison brilliantly argued that the old philosophers were wrong.
Democracy could flourish, he reasoned, only in large territories with sizable populations and a diversity of interests that would block the ambitions of citizens to control the government. Individual interests and liberties could be most effectively protected in a system of representative government that was open to the voices of all. The people who agreed with this view of government and supported ratification became known as Federalists.
The fathers of the constitution, fabricated the vision of the United States constitutional document from the idealistic notion of inclusive, selfless, civil perspective as all good works are based; like the bibles of all faiths, albeit they are parochial in there opinion because of the human factors that made them ignorant of the information I present here as . We still have not got it right but we have the ways and means to implement a better version of the idealistic plan our fore fathers drafted.