What's with the "Constitutional Republic" talk?

[Patrick Gerard]

I notice this has gained huge favor with conservatives lately, insisting that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic.

In particular, I see the term contrasted both with "European Socialist State" and "Democracy."

Here's the thing: I don't think I EVER heard this term until around six months ago, which is why I think it's revisionist history concocted by Frank Luntz as a talking point. I know the term was used before but it was just a combination of two words, constitutional and republic, not a capitalized phrase and in general refering to a republic which is constitutional or a constitutional state which is not a monarchy, not as a label for a type of government.

Every history of government teacher I ever had, regardless of political persuasion, always insisted that we don't have a well-defined, singular model of government that's easy to classify but that the term "Democratic Republic" was probably fairly good.

It worries me when I see a new term enter the popular discourse like "Constitutional Republic" and in particular because it's a big word I see being slung by a lot of folks who never took a government class, which suggests to me that the term has a central source and is being disseminated, talking points style. There is a campaign to get this concept in use. And I mistrust campaigns to get a word or phrase into use.

I note that the "Constitutional Republic" term has enough clout on the right that it's got an entry on Conservapedia:

http://conservapedia.com/Constitutional_Republic
(Apparently, their article on it went back to 2007.)


Here's what bugs me:

The big claim here is that the constitution exists to subvert "majoritarianism," to create a balanced state that opposes tyranny AND democracy. So what exactly does it mean when people say "We have to defend our Constitutional Republic through any means necessary"?

That seems to imply armed insurrection against a majority (even a majority big enough to amend the constitution).

The Wikipedia article came into being in 2006 and it's talk page is... interesting, including discussions of whether Karl Marx even deserves to be considered a political philosopher or whether he lacks notability in that regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...ional_republic

[Ray G.]

It strikes me as a pretty accurate description, honestly. But it's just one of those buzzwords that people like to throw around when yelling. It sounds important.

[CutterMike]

The problem with referring to the U. S. as a "Democratic Republic" as your professor did is that, too often, the name has been used by oligarchies (Democratic Republic of Congo under Mobutu, say), or one-party, authoritarian Democratic People's Republics (pick almost any one).

As accurate as it may be, it's got a hell of a lot of baggage to haul around with it.

[DarkKnightJared]

What's weird about that isn't so much the "Republic" part so much as the "Constitutional," since both sides of our major political movements have pretty much throughly fucked it over at this point.

[restlessnative]

I thought we were a "representative democracy"

[Lester C.]

As a kid I remember it being explained to me that a democracy is where citizens vote on laws, but a republic is where citizens ellect people who vote on their behalf.

It that does not way you, think back to when you were in school and said, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. "

[Patrick Gerard]

What's weird about that isn't so much the "Republic" part so much as the "Constitutional," since both sides of our major political movements have pretty much throughly fucked it over at this point.

Moreover, according to what I've read, every modern republic has a constitution.

[Patrick Gerard]

I thought we were a "representative democracy"

From what I've read, conservative idealogues have made a pretty concerted effort to scrub that from the wikis online.

In a representative democracy, they argue, sovereignty is delegated to the government through voting. Whereas the argument goes that our government has no sovereignty and sovereignty resides with the individual.

So, according to them, the UK is a representative democracy. The US is NOT because our government has no sovereignty.

Took me a bit of digging to get to the heart of why they like the term. That and it reworks things so they can blast the Democrats and their "democracy" while lauding that we live in a "republic" which is supported by Republicans.

It also takes its roots with the strict constructionist conservatives, who like to argue that the word "republic" appears in the Constitution but the word "democracy" does not.

In short, it means that they can support their own agenda as being the "true intent" of the framers, even when it lacks democratic support, and oppose democratically supported officials and legislation as illegitimate if they don't align with their views of the framers' intent. It boils down to, "We don't need votes to do the right thing and your votes don't make you right. The U.S. is a confederation of 230 million sovereign entities, governed first by the constitution, second by the states, and third by the federal government, who works for us and has no business telling us what to do. Other people's votes can't touch me, lalalalalala."

And my profs always used a lot of terms to describe the U.S., arguing that none were a perfect fit and that we have a hybrid system... and that most modern states don't conveniently fit a single label.

[Patrick Gerard]

I may have mis-spoken.

In a constitutional republic, they argue, the individual is a sovereign entity and the individual delegates their authority to the government through the constitution and through the constitution alone. And, I think, could terminate that agreement in theory. If the constitution collapsed, you'd have anarchy and no laws would be valid.

Whereas in a representative democracy, the government is sovereign and reflects the will of the people through elections. The constitution is an agreement which is given its power by government recognition of it. If the constitution collapsed, laws would still be valid.

[MacQuarrie]

I notice this has gained huge favor with conservatives lately, insisting that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic.

In particular, I see the term contrasted both with "European Socialist State" and "Democracy."

Here's the thing: I don't think I EVER heard this term until around six months ago...

I've heard the term among conservatives (especially the anti- "new world order" conspiracy types) since at least 1981. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't make it new.

It's also completely accurate.

A pure democracy would be majority rule; if 50% + 1 say that such-and-thus should be the law, it's the law. There is no place for the minority view. In a Republic, representatives are elected by popular vote to make the decisions; they are supposed to make sure the minority view is represented and that the powerful do not abuse the government to oppress the powerless. 200 years ago, this idea made us the most liberal country on earth.

The Constitutional part refers to the fact that our system begins with the Constitution and all laws have to adhere to it; in other countries, particularly former monarchies and such, their constitution was drafted relatively late in their history, and it reflects their previously-existing laws rather than determining their validity.

In many "democratic republics," the law is whatever the current rulers and the will of the current popular fashion say it is; in a constitutional republic, the law is the law regardless of who is in charge this week. Or at least that's what it says on the label.