Republic vs Democracy

The Examples below illustrate a very concise distinction between the two.

SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.


SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.


EXAMPLES
Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.

Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.


COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?

Copied with encouragement from: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

 

Understanding is a three-edged sword; there's your version, the other person's version --and the truth.

The truth is, we lost our republic. I honor those who can still remember. Great post, Melbo.

 

And we need to fight to regain our REPUBLIC from those that would prefer to oppress us!!!

 

Please, arrive at your point.
If you are claiming that the language is changing, and therefore this legitimizes the corporate takeover of America since it is clearly defined in legal writing, I must argue this is false reasoning. One must first understand the meaning of legality and the jurisdiction in which it applies. For example, the definition of "person" within USC title 28, clearly draws significant conclusions, whereas the meaning of a sovereign citizen or natural born citizen under Constitutional precedence paints an entirely different picture. However, if you are thinking about invoking the use of the Constitutional definition in a court of "law" these days, you should pay very close attention to the devil in the details --every court operates under maritime law (Admiralty), the code of debtors and merchants, and the common law hasn't been active since the 1930's. The legality I spoke of earlier pertains to the monetary system itself. It is highly illegal for this entire system we currently have today to operate within the confines of Constitutional Law. In order for it to have been possible, the rule of necessity enacted by FDR in 1933 gave promise for the continuation of the Emergency War Powers, and with this new power, enabled the private banking cartel to conduct banking business, as can be verified by the research I have done over the years and provided every piece of proof possible in the hopes that people will begin to see that we have become a society of slaves to the corporations. We are no longer sovereign citizens and we no longer have the republic our forefathers fought to establish by resisting the tyranny of the British crown. Not on paper, at least. And if they are going to be using a currency foreign to Constitutionality, they need to regulate and punish as well since one cannot use the common law court cases and the Constitution itself (since this is an illegal currency not authorized by the Constitution). Take special notice of the very fact that every court case will have a fee associated with it. Money. This colorable currency required a colorable law, and the term "colorable" here means having only the appearance and substance of legitimacy, but is in fact totally absent. Now that they established a currency of their own and a series of codes to enforce their will, well...the world is their prize. Name a "law", go ahead. Are you referencing the Uniform Commercial CODE (UCC), Federal Reserve CODE (FRC), United States CODE (USC), Internal Revenue CODE (IRC), or any state CODE? You see...corporations must promote their policies. And as it turns out, public policy is very good for business (and not just in America).

Every President of the "United States" since Franklin Roosevelt has reaffirmed the national emergency and issued Executive Orders under 12 USC 95(a), continuing the US Bankruptcy and “reorganization”. Today, things are continuing, with enemies being created everywhere -- from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, from Enemy Combatants to you or your neighbor next door. It is not a comforting thought. But it’s also true. Understanding is very important --each "President" (I just call them CEO's) must FIRST re-enact the emergency, thus continuing the corporate dynasty, before ANYTHING ELSE. The reason is simple: the only LAW in which all of this is made possible is the TWEA I keep mentioning which was amended by FDR in 1933 and approved by Congress. Black's Law dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of March 6, 1933 as the sole reason the private banks may operate and conduct banking business under the emergency of war powers. This means, if a POTUS did not enact this emergency, everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING comes to a complete HALT. The links I provided within this post will provide you with everything you need to verify what I have typed is true. Even on Wikipedia, the Senate Report 97-549 page is proof that the truth is constantly being screened. You cannot kill the message.

“TM 2000-25: 118-120, Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority is derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the people shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation, or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism (sic), license, agitation, discontent, and anarchy.”

“TM2000-25: 120-121, Republic – Authority is derived through election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles, and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.”