Our Constitution: "Well-Regulated Democracy," "In Its Principles … Purely Democratical"

I keep hearing the same (pointless, I think) claims that America is a republic, not a democracy. It's both a republic and a democracy.

But don't take my word on it; the quotes in the title are from James Wilson and John Marshall, then-future Supreme Court Justices, speaking in state conventions that ratified the Constitution in 1787 and 1788. (Wilson was also a principal drafter of the Constitution.) Wilson defended the Constitution in the Pennsylvania convention by speaking of the three forms of government being the "monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical," and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is "inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives." He added,

Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE….

Chief Justice John Marshall—who helped lead the fight in the Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution—likewise defended the Constitution in that convention thus:

I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom.

Thomas Jefferson, in an 1815 letter, likewise spoke of America's success in the War of 1812 as an example of

the excellence of a representative democracy [referring to the U.S.] compared with the misrule of Kings.

It's true that some of the numbers of the Federalist tried to sharply distinguish "democracy" and "republic"; but that wasn't the majority position among Framing-era Americans (as I discuss in even more detail in this post).

Comments

[Currentsitguy]

I think when people say that it is really shorthand for saying we are not a simple majoritarian system where all you need to for government to do anything it damn well pleases is 51%.

[DaivdBehar]

These are the masking ideologies, either naive or intentionally misleading. The reality is a set of competing oligarchies, Mafias, using men with guns to enrich themselves.

[Eugene Volokh]

Well, we surely aren't such a system. But that just means that we're a representative democracy, a term used by Jefferson, Adams, and others, or perhaps a federal constitutional representative democracy -- or even, if you'd like, a federal constitutional representative democratic republic. It's not that we're a republic and not a democracy; we're a republic and a democracy.

[Darwinnie]

What form of government does it become when elected representatives undermine voting rights and gerrymander to ensure their party remains in power?

[RoninX]

I agree that the "republic vs. democracy" argument is a distraction.
It's the constitutional part that's important -- "constitutional republic" or "constitutional democracy".

There are some people who seem to believe that "more democratic" policy making is inherently better, but our system was intentionally designed to limit the power of the majority, and to specifically delineate the things that the majority can't do.

[Stephen Lathrop]

RoninX — Well, limit the power of the majority within the subordinate part of the nation's constitutional system, anyway. The other part, the sovereign power part of the constitutional system, which is empowered to constitute government at pleasure, without any constraints at all, can just do as it pleases, by any means it can manage. Thus, this familiar language:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Peter From Oz]

I suppose it really depends upon the definition of democracy.

I wouldhave thought it easiest to avoid that definitional trap is by saying that America is a republic whose legislators are democratically elected and whose President is indirectly democratically elected. Other Wetern republics are similar.

The UK, Australia, Canada and NZ are all monarchies whose legislators are democratically elected.

I think we can, like you, use the word "democracy" to describe western states on the basis that the composition of the Government is determined by popular elections. The politicians are thus accountable to the people.

[Jimmy the Dane]

We used to be something. Now just a banana republic that raid the private offices and residences of previous leaders over framed magazine covers and empty file folders. Soon, at least according to Brandon, it would not surprise me if they started just jailing people who are registered Republican. Statements like that used to be bombast until the DOJ started to make good on political prosecutions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hating your country this much must be exhausting.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Liberals have been doing it since the 1960's, they still seem rather energized. Just getting with the times, man.

Remember if you are not with the "majority" as some minority, in more ways than one, mouthpiece says then you are extreme. Sounds like a President for all the people, right?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Remember when you wanted Americans that criticized a Cheney to be renditioned to Gitmo and tortured?? I do. 😉

[zztop8970]

equally dangerous is inventing domestic terrorists for political gain.
https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/merrick-garland-abuses-his-authority-suppress-dissent

[David Nieporent]

Is it equally dangerous to lie about people inventing domestic terrorists for political gain? You probably should find a source more honest than Hans A. von Spakovsky. Contrary to what he says, Garland didn't say anything about dissent or terrorism.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Those weren't just random "people" but activists who tried to assault him and place him under "citizen's arrest" for supposed "war crimes." Just a little different and had the DOJ treated them the same as the Capitol tourists the left would have had a hissy fit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Having a senile fabulist disgracing the office of the presidency didn't make me hate my country five years ago, and it's not going to make me start now.

You go ahead and do you, though.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We can hate the people who are ruining our country and not hate the country.

FYI. HTH TIA

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Remember on the anniversary of 9/11 when George W Bush warned about the dangers from domestic terrorists?? I do. 😉

[zztop8970]

equally dangerous is inventing domestic terrorists for political gain.
https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/merrick-garland-abuses-his-authority-suppress-dissent

[Michael P]

Being that obtuse must take practice.

[Sarcastr0]

Not buying the right's latest persecution drama is not being obtuse, Mr. drama queen.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Dismissing legitimate criticism of an authoritarian regime gone mad isn't going to help you much in the long run.....

[Sarcastr0]

You don't do legitimate criticism, you do hate. You talk up Russia. You talk up political violence.

And, of course, you're wrong about authoritarianism.

It's a pretty lame trick to ipse dixit that we're in an insane dictatorship and then condemn others for not following you down your personal rabbit hole.

[Currentsitguy]

We don't hate the county, we hate the government and the system it has created. It seems there are many who find it difficult to draw a distinction between the two.

I love the country. I love the land, the people, and the principals embodied in the Constitution; it's the ever expanding and wildly overreaching government I despise.

(Note I did not single out any one Party or group. I hold them all in equal contempt.)

[Sarcastr0]

We are a republic, so if you hate the government, you would seem to hate many of the people who live in it.

And I've got bad news for you about your party of choice and it's plan for the lands you love so much.

[Eric Owens]

Generalizations are tricky. They can be a kind of short hand, that over time gets confused with the more specific terms. Democracy has been used so much in reference to the US, that many people think we are literally a remake of the Greek civilization. Even logical fallacies can be useful tools when used properly, it makes using them no less a cautionary tale, though.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Democracy has been used so much in reference to the US, that many people think we are literally a remake of the Greek civilization.

Like who?

[Eugene Volokh]

I'm with Noscitur on this. But beyond that, the terms just aren't that sharply defined. For instance, a classic example of a republic, both for the Framers and for historically minded people of our generation, is the Roman Republic. But the Roman Republic actually didn't have representative lawmaking (or constitutional constraints that required supermajorities to remove). Our Senate, for instance, is an elected representative lawmaking chamber; theirs wasn't elected, representative, or lawmaking. Roman lawmaking was done by direct vote, albeit by a highly malapportioned voting system, and with the need to have an elected magistrate propose the law.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Our Senate, for instance, is an elected representative lawmaking chamber; "

Was that true before the direct election of Senators?

Also, what is the meaning of the Constitutional requirement that the states have a "republican" form of government?

[Eugene Volokh]

Mr. Bumble: (1) Yes, before the direct election of Senators, we had an elected representative lawmaking chamber -- Senators were just elected by other elected representative lawmaking chambers, which in turn were directly elected.

(2) Republican here was the opposite of monarchical or despotic (though possibly also, in American usage, aristocratic), see, e.g., Edmund Randolph in the Convention, Tench Coxe, Madison, St. George Tucker, William Rawle, and Joseph Story.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I mean Emperor Palpatine, I mean Biden, just basically told 50% of America that they are not American. Do you think that is going to make people go "rah rah America"?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

All right, then, it's a floor wax *and* a dessert topping!

I leaned kind of heavily on the Federalist for my definitions, but then, they're not the final word.

I believe that our Union has a republican form of government, based on the following reasoning: The federal govt must secure a republican form of government to each state, and it would be inconsistent if a form of government important enough for the feds to impose on all states wouldn't be the form of government the feds are living under.

As for democracy, it seems even the other founders got beyond the Federalist in their definitions.

[Mr. Bumble]

When SNL was funny.

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/shimmer-floor-wax/n8625

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"When SNL was funny."

I was trying to "out" all the old people by seeing who recognized that reference.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "old people". Older than you?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Thank goodness for the Fifth Amendment.

[Eugene Volokh]

The Margrave of Azilla: Oh, all the people I quote would have agreed that our Union has a republican form of government (and I agree, too). It's just that they also referred to it, as would I, as having a democratic form of government.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Some of Madison's Federalist Papers (particularly 10 and 48) do present "democracy" and "republic" as as alternatives (with the latter described as both superior and the model employed in the proposed Constitution). But I tend to agree with Prof. Volokh that this perspective was aberrational, with the consensus view being that the country was both a democracy and a republic (and that those were good things).

[Carl_N_Brown]

Democratic Constitutional Republic
"... government of the people, by the people, for the people ..."
"... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."
and defended by volunteers raised from the people.

A quaint ideal I was raised to believe in.

Some want to move to a Hobbesian absolute state justified by a Weberian state monopoly on force.

[TEMA]

Democracy? Republic? Neither. The United States a bureaucratic a-theocracy operating under the aegis of an anti-democratic oligarchy.

[dwshelf]

We are self ruled, which is, I think, what most sincere speakers mean when they say a "democracy", or that "democracy is threatened".

There might be times when "we don't generally make decisions by plebiscite" is used as a rhetorically useful counter to "we're a democracy", but most such usage is simple pedantry. It's useful to not use nebulous terms (democracy, republic) when making a concise point.

[SRG]

"we don't generally make decisions by plebiscite"

That line is being pushed hard atm by GOP state legislatures who don't like the recent trend in voter initiatives.

[dwshelf]

So when we do make decisions by initiative, are we being more "democratic"? Not really. Self rule exists before, during, and afterwards. We end up stuck with what we voted for.

[SRG]

That is indeed a very reasonable position and one that was conventional in Britain.

But for years the GOP has used voter initatives (often enough astroturfed) and now they discover that they do not after all like it when citizens engage. I note, too that the same principle applies to recall elections.

[SRG]

FWIW a constitutional monarchy, as prevails in most north-west European countries, is a good instance of how a country can be a representative democracy and not a republic.

[dwshelf]

not a republic.

And we see how that went.

Amongst educated people who post to VC, there is utterly no consensus regarding the meaning of "republic". Some claim authority, others claim what they've believed for sixty years, but everyone's understanding is a bit different from the other guy's.

[QuantumBoxCat]

It's true that some of the numbers of the Federalist tried to sharply distinguish "democracy" and "republic"; but that wasn't the majority position among Framing-era Americans (as I discuss in even more detail in this post).

I clicked on the link thinking Eugene had polling data from a representative sample of Framing-era Americans. It's pretty bold to claim that a majority (over 51%) of an entire population held a specific view on a given question. I assumed he had some newly discovered data to back up that claim. Alas, all I found were a couple of quotes from the writings of specific people.

Kind of a let down.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"It's pretty bold to claim that a majority (over 51%) of an entire population held a specific view on a given question."

Yes, that would be a bold claim, but it's also the polar opposite of what the section of the article you quote claims.

"but that wasn't the majority position among Framing-era Americans"

[ReaderY]

It’s a republic in the sense that elected officials are not required to simply parrot their constituents’ wishes. They can negotiate compromises that satisfy nobody completely. They can vote their consciences against their constituents’ wishes. Nonetheless, they have to persuade their constituents of the wisdom of their actions if they want to be re-elected.

[ragebot]

"Nonetheless, they have to persuade their constituents of the wisdom of their actions if they want to be re-elected."

What a load of bullshit. Obamacare was passed due to turncoat pubs who voted for it and never ran for reelection and instead got cushy private sector jobs after retiring from elected life.

It will be interesting to see how Manchin winds up after voting for the as much inflation as possible act since some of his poll numbers after that are in the toilet. Not to mention Lizzy who got booted out of the primary for her grandstanding about orange man bad.

[David Nieporent]

What a load of bullshit. Obamacare was passed due to turncoat pubs who voted for it and never ran for reelection and instead got cushy private sector jobs after retiring from elected life.

I cannot think of any way to interpret the term "pubs" in that statement other than "Republicans." Assuming that's what it means, then — even setting aside the Bellemoresqe conspiracy theorizing — this is just factually false (which, come to think of it, is also Bellemoresqe). Obamacare got zero Republican votes.

[ragebot]

Hey turdface eat shit and die.

"In July 2009, House Democrats introduced the Affordable Health Care for America Act, the precursor to the Affordable Care Act. The House passed the bill on November 7, 2009, with the votes of 219 Democrats and one Republican (Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.))."

https://ballotpedia.org/Obamacare_overview

[David Nieporent]

Okay, so

1) One person can probably not be described as "pubs."

2) The November 7, 2009 vote was not actually the final vote on approval; that took place on March 21, 2010. Cao voted no on that vote.

3) The November 7, 2009 vote was 220-215, so that preliminary approval was not "due to" Cao's vote; it would've — you can check the math — passed even if he had voted against it.

4) Cao did not "never ran for reelection." He ran for reelection, and lost overwhelmingly.

5) Cao did not get a "cushy private sector job," whatever that phrase means.

[gVOR08]

Saying we're a republic not a democracy is exactly the same as saying that's not a vehicle, it's a sedan. (With apologies to whoever originally came up with that.)

[Steponsnek]

“Well-regulated democracy” means lots of restrictive laws tightly regulating voting, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sure it just means having rights.

[Toranth]

Whoosh.

[Sarcastr0]

No, purposefully getting a definition wrong is not the same as making a point.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, that's what makes them representative democracies.

The fact that they have a king (and/or queen) is what makes them not republics.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well at least in Western nations, but not the Middle East and Asia.

I am wondering, how would China be described?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Difference is Hitlery actually broke the law and used political influence (the infamous tarmac visit) to avoid prosecution. Trump has been subjected to an endless barrage of political persecution that has been predicated by lies and falsehoods just because liberals don't like his political take. That is dangerous, but to the left it is some kind of funny joke. There is going to get a point, if we haven't already surpassed it, where it ain't gonna be so funny.....

[SRG]

So it is your position that the documents that Trump took to Maga-Lago were his to take, or that even if they weren't, it was reasonable for him to negotiate for their transfer to NARA for 18 months and then not hand all of them over, and that his claim that he had a standing order to declassify documents that went to Maga-Lago, which he only made recently and for which there is neither evidentiary nor witness support is nonetheless true, and that when anyone who has classified documents and keeps them relatively unsecured and won't hand them over for months and months, the FBI/DoJ should simply say, well, them's the breaks, nothing we can do about it.

What a Trumpsucker.

[Darwinnie]

What about firing Sessions and naming Barr who chose not to prosecute Trump for obstruction? Pfft.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They're not, because they have monarchs. Just like if Massachusetts decided to appoint a hereditary king, that would violate the republican guarantee clause, even if the king didn't really do anything.

[David Nieporent]

Well, it would violate the title of nobility clause. I'm not sure it would violate the Republican guarantee clause if it were purely ceremonial. But although custom says she will not really exercise them, the British monarch does retain formal powers in the UK (and in other countries for which she serves as monarch). And merely forbearing to use powers is not the same as not having them.