The following table outlines some of the differences
between a constitutional republic and a democracy:
DEMOCRACY
– Ruled by a majority that enjoys unlimited power. Minority groups have no protection.
– Individuals can make their own decisions except in those situations that the majority
has limited.
– While all citizens supposedly have a say in government and are to be treated as equals, the majority often ends up tyrannically ruling the minority.
– The United States is commonly confused for a democracy. However, the will of the people should not, and does not, change the rules that limit the government’s power.
– Freedom of religion is permitted to the extent that the majority does not limit religious freedom for the minority.
– Private property is permitted, though the majority may place limits on the property rights of the minority.
REPUBLIC
– Follows a written Constitution that protects the rights of the minority from being infringed upon by the majority.
– Generally, individuals can make their own decisions, especially in situations
where the Constitution protects their “unalienable rights.”
– Generally, all citizens are supposed to have an equal say and be treated equally, especially as protected under the Constitution
– Article 4, Section 4 defines the United States as a Republic.
– Generally, religious freedom is permitted, especially as protected under the Constitution.
– Generally, private property is permitted, especially as protected under the Constitution.
In a way, I’ve wanted people to ‘check my work’ in a few areas.
One of those is checking to see if the founding fathers ever mentioned the word ‘Democracy’ in both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
I’ve taken the full text of both documents and placed them in a word processor file and then simply search for the word ‘Democracy.’ My searches have yielded nothing, but I would like others to try this and report back to make sure I’m correct in my methodology.
That’s important because as you outlined, there are distinct differences between the two concepts and the fascist far left keeps on trying to hammer away at the lie that we’re a ‘Democracy’ when that isn’t the case.
Those differences show everyone why they are doing that.
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW
In the context of the United States, both definitions apply.
This response from the AI search engine admits the stupid Left are doing all they can in their weaponizing language to destroy our Constitution and therefore the U.S. They weaponize language through word/etymology changes, sentence structure, vagueness, fake news (mass gun shootings, stabbings, police brutality [it does exist, but not to the extent they claim], etc.
"The American Constitution indeed protects the people and constrains the government. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the country and serves as a framework for the government's powers and limitations [Source 0]. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Separation of Powers: The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, dividing the federal government into three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. This separation ensures a system of checks and balances, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful [Source 0].
2. Bill of Rights: The Constitution includes the Bill of Rights, which enumerates certain fundamental rights and liberties of the people. These rights include freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, as well as protections against unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, and cruel and unusual punishment [Source 6].
3. Second Amendment: The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is one of the rights explicitly protected by the Constitution and has been the subject of much debate and interpretation [Source 1].
4. Due Process: The Fifth Amendment ensures that citizens cannot be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. It protects against double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and establishes the power of eminent domain [Source 6].
5. Judicial Review: The Constitution provides for judicial review, which allows the courts to review the constitutionality of laws and government actions. This power allows the judiciary to strike down laws that violate the Constitution and protect the rights of individuals [Source 0].
While the Constitution provides a strong framework for protecting the people and constraining the government, there are ongoing debates and interpretations regarding the extent of these protections. It is important to note that the interpretation of the Constitution can vary over time and among different individuals and groups.
Some argue that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly, adhering closely to the original intent of the framers. Others advocate for a more flexible interpretation that takes into account societal changes and evolving understandings of rights. These differing viewpoints can lead to debates and legal challenges regarding the scope and application of constitutional protections.
In conclusion, the American Constitution does protect the people and place constraints on the government through the separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, due process, and judicial review. However, the interpretation and application of these protections can vary, leading to ongoing discussions and legal debates. It is important for citizens to stay informed and engaged in these discussions to ensure the continued protection of their rights.”
As long as Americans allow politicians, “health” agencies, and others to get away with weaponizing language an any way, shape, and form, then America is dead.
"Meanings matter. One does not get to change the long-held meaning of a word in order to prove their belief as if it is a fact. What people fail to realize is that when *virologists (and Steve’s friends) discuss isolation, *they have entirely changed the meaning of the word itself.”
THERE WAS NO PANDEMIC:
"The word pandemic used to have a very specific meaning. It was used to describe a scenario where there was extensive incapacitation of key workers and large numbers of deaths, including young people.
Using this long-established definition of the word, we conclude that there was in fact no global pandemic in 2020. The word was deliberately misapplied and weaponised against an unsuspecting public."
Querying the existence of a covid ‘pandemic’ – HART
“As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent too. Words are used to disguise, not illuminate,” warned George Orwell.
A generation back, *historian Paul Johnson sounded his own prescient alarm:
"[O]ne principal way in which our civilization is rendered vulnerable to the assaults of its enemies (and false friends) is by the undermining of linguistic truth. [Language] is the bloodstream of our culture, the real infrastructure of civilization…. Words can be prostituted and debauched, damaged by use, misuse or intent, rendered untruthful or treacherous, devalued or aggrandized, stood, as it were, on their heads, or turned inside out…."
More succinctly, Stalin, Goebbels or one of the twentieth-century’s Big Bad Guys is alleged to have said, “He who *controls the language rules the world.”
This century’s secular Progressives understand this principle, leveraging it masterfully, waylaying word usage to coax along or, failing that, bully along transformation in people and the civilization around them.
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant *pervert the plain Meaning of Words!,” *Samuel Adams wrote to John Pitt two-hundred-forty-three-years ago. And the American statesman/Founding Father was not only correct but foresightful. Modern-day Leftism/Progressivism is, at its core, tyrannical and it employs language to warp perceptions of reality, because reality is opposed to most Leftist/Progressive tenets.
None but fools surrender the integrity of language without a fight.
The call to modify public language is motivated by a desire to achieve a political aim.
This is what Orwell meant when he said that those who control language are able to determine what is considered to be true, what we are allowed to think.
One of the key features of the language wars is to make a link between certain words and the rise of hate crimes. This is done through labelling certain words and ideas as forms of ‘*hate speech’. Once a *word is *rebranded as an act of hate, it can be discredited on the basis that it encourages *violence.
The Left doesn't own words & their meanings, people. Stop allowing them to think they do.
The following table outlines some of the differences
between a constitutional republic and a democracy:
DEMOCRACY
– Ruled by a majority that enjoys unlimited power. Minority groups have no protection.
– Individuals can make their own decisions except in those situations that the majority
has limited.
– While all citizens supposedly have a say in government and are to be treated as equals, the majority often ends up tyrannically ruling the minority.
– The United States is commonly confused for a democracy. However, the will of the people should not, and does not, change the rules that limit the government’s power.
– Freedom of religion is permitted to the extent that the majority does not limit religious freedom for the minority.
– Private property is permitted, though the majority may place limits on the property rights of the minority.
REPUBLIC
– Follows a written Constitution that protects the rights of the minority from being infringed upon by the majority.
– Generally, individuals can make their own decisions, especially in situations
where the Constitution protects their “unalienable rights.”
– Generally, all citizens are supposed to have an equal say and be treated equally, especially as protected under the Constitution
– Article 4, Section 4 defines the United States as a Republic.
– Generally, religious freedom is permitted, especially as protected under the Constitution.
– Generally, private property is permitted, especially as protected under the Constitution.
In a way, I’ve wanted people to ‘check my work’ in a few areas.
One of those is checking to see if the founding fathers ever mentioned the word ‘Democracy’ in both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
I’ve taken the full text of both documents and placed them in a word processor file and then simply search for the word ‘Democracy.’ My searches have yielded nothing, but I would like others to try this and report back to make sure I’m correct in my methodology.
That’s important because as you outlined, there are distinct differences between the two concepts and the fascist far left keeps on trying to hammer away at the lie that we’re a ‘Democracy’ when that isn’t the case.
Those differences show everyone why they are doing that.
Dan Smoot: Constitutional Republic
https://youtu.be/ewJyuXSW5nA;
https://legaldictionary.net/constitutional-republic/
https://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/why-there-is-no-mention-of-democracy-in-the-u-s-constitution/
Republic
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW
In the context of the United States, both definitions apply.
https://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-4-section-4/
This response from the AI search engine admits the stupid Left are doing all they can in their weaponizing language to destroy our Constitution and therefore the U.S. They weaponize language through word/etymology changes, sentence structure, vagueness, fake news (mass gun shootings, stabbings, police brutality [it does exist, but not to the extent they claim], etc.
"The American Constitution indeed protects the people and constrains the government. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the country and serves as a framework for the government's powers and limitations [Source 0]. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Separation of Powers: The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, dividing the federal government into three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. This separation ensures a system of checks and balances, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful [Source 0].
2. Bill of Rights: The Constitution includes the Bill of Rights, which enumerates certain fundamental rights and liberties of the people. These rights include freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, as well as protections against unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, and cruel and unusual punishment [Source 6].
3. Second Amendment: The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is one of the rights explicitly protected by the Constitution and has been the subject of much debate and interpretation [Source 1].
4. Due Process: The Fifth Amendment ensures that citizens cannot be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. It protects against double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and establishes the power of eminent domain [Source 6].
5. Judicial Review: The Constitution provides for judicial review, which allows the courts to review the constitutionality of laws and government actions. This power allows the judiciary to strike down laws that violate the Constitution and protect the rights of individuals [Source 0].
While the Constitution provides a strong framework for protecting the people and constraining the government, there are ongoing debates and interpretations regarding the extent of these protections. It is important to note that the interpretation of the Constitution can vary over time and among different individuals and groups.
Some argue that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly, adhering closely to the original intent of the framers. Others advocate for a more flexible interpretation that takes into account societal changes and evolving understandings of rights. These differing viewpoints can lead to debates and legal challenges regarding the scope and application of constitutional protections.
In conclusion, the American Constitution does protect the people and place constraints on the government through the separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, due process, and judicial review. However, the interpretation and application of these protections can vary, leading to ongoing discussions and legal debates. It is important for citizens to stay informed and engaged in these discussions to ensure the continued protection of their rights.”
As long as Americans allow politicians, “health” agencies, and others to get away with weaponizing language an any way, shape, and form, then America is dead.
Examples below:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/01/lefts-war-words-manipulates-mind/
Quote from Mike Stone:
"Meanings matter. One does not get to change the long-held meaning of a word in order to prove their belief as if it is a fact. What people fail to realize is that when *virologists (and Steve’s friends) discuss isolation, *they have entirely changed the meaning of the word itself.”
THERE WAS NO PANDEMIC:
"The word pandemic used to have a very specific meaning. It was used to describe a scenario where there was extensive incapacitation of key workers and large numbers of deaths, including young people.
Using this long-established definition of the word, we conclude that there was in fact no global pandemic in 2020. The word was deliberately misapplied and weaponised against an unsuspecting public."
Querying the existence of a covid ‘pandemic’ – HART
https://www.hartgroup.org/pandemic-definitions/
https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1669927372642983936
“As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent too. Words are used to disguise, not illuminate,” warned George Orwell.
A generation back, *historian Paul Johnson sounded his own prescient alarm:
"[O]ne principal way in which our civilization is rendered vulnerable to the assaults of its enemies (and false friends) is by the undermining of linguistic truth. [Language] is the bloodstream of our culture, the real infrastructure of civilization…. Words can be prostituted and debauched, damaged by use, misuse or intent, rendered untruthful or treacherous, devalued or aggrandized, stood, as it were, on their heads, or turned inside out…."
More succinctly, Stalin, Goebbels or one of the twentieth-century’s Big Bad Guys is alleged to have said, “He who *controls the language rules the world.”
This century’s secular Progressives understand this principle, leveraging it masterfully, waylaying word usage to coax along or, failing that, bully along transformation in people and the civilization around them.
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant *pervert the plain Meaning of Words!,” *Samuel Adams wrote to John Pitt two-hundred-forty-three-years ago. And the American statesman/Founding Father was not only correct but foresightful. Modern-day Leftism/Progressivism is, at its core, tyrannical and it employs language to warp perceptions of reality, because reality is opposed to most Leftist/Progressive tenets.
None but fools surrender the integrity of language without a fight.
The call to modify public language is motivated by a desire to achieve a political aim.
This is what Orwell meant when he said that those who control language are able to determine what is considered to be true, what we are allowed to think.
One of the key features of the language wars is to make a link between certain words and the rise of hate crimes. This is done through labelling certain words and ideas as forms of ‘*hate speech’. Once a *word is *rebranded as an act of hate, it can be discredited on the basis that it encourages *violence.
The Left doesn't own words & their meanings, people. Stop allowing them to think they do.