Democratic Republic Vs Tyranny

"The writers of the Constitution were determined not to let such a person(tyranny) get control of the new American government." In 1787 the Founding Fathers met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The Constitutional Convention was a meeting created to help fix the national government and make it stronger. How did the new Constitution prevent a tyranny government? The Constitution was a set of principles used to help govern a government and was made after the Articles of Confederation, which was the original constitution stating the rights of the national government. A frame was created to support the system and be against a tyranny which is a cruel government rule under a nation. The Constitution guards against a tyranny in four

Larger parts consistently undermine the benefits of minorities. There are only two techniques for avoiding perniciousness. The first is to assemble a successful government, a "gathering will." Such a "will' is greater than, and self-ruling of, the direct larger part (Madison.at.al.2008). This "plan" is hazardous in light of the way that such a lawmaking body may hurl its vitality behind a social affair in people in general eye clashing with the overall public incredible. In our country, the pro to regulate begins from the entire society. In addition, under the Constitution society is detached into numerous get-togethers of people who hold various points of view and have unmistakable interests. This makes it to a great degree troublesome for one assembling to summon or undermine the minority

First, society grows; a government becomes needed, and in turn laws. Next, because of growth and the inability to gather the people all together, elections become needed. He describes these simple concepts as “the best balance between government and society” (Paine, n.pag.). After clearly explaining to the people his ideas, he uses his concepts to discredit the “monarchial and aristocratic tyranny” (Paine, n.pag.) in the English Constitution. He further examines the lack of appropriate checks and balances, and charges it as unable to “be the gift of a wise people” (Paine, n.pag.). In this section, Paine successfully illustrates an expectation of appropriate government, in a basic construction that puts organization to the public’s desires.

The pitfalls of establishing a pure democracy would destroy individual rights, and that they can admit no cure for misconduct and create violence among people. Madison prefers a republic because it would protect individual rights from majority rule, and would protect from inequalities among people. Also in a republic, delegates would be placed in power that would provide a large option of character to run the government.

By decision making by representatives of the people, rather than direct decision making by the people themselves. These elite representatives would be expected to use their prudence and wisdom to make decisions based on what was in the best interests of the masses. (pg. 7)

Tyranny or Freedom which would you pick, the American colonists were justified in fighting and seperating from britain. The colonists were justified to separate due to heavy taxes without representation and the unjust actions of great britain.

Democracy Or Absolutism `To start with, in the eighteenth centuries in Europe they had many forms of government, but these two turned out to be more successful the the rest. So starting of with Democracy a form of government where everyone is eligible to go for government. Absolutism would be when only a specific group of people is allowed to go for government. Beginning with in which i believe would be more suitable for Europe in the eighteenth centuries. In my opinion i believe a democracy was best fit for Europe, I say this because in most of the documents within the packet all state their beliefs in which turned out to be a government of democracy.

Most people believe that the United States of America is a democracy, or a government run by the voice of the citizens. But this country is actually built on a slightly different principle; one that values the representation of groups more than the whole population as one. A country ruled by the choices of the majority could become an unjust and entirely undemocratic state. The framers of the constitution understood this possibility and worked to limit the power of popular majorities in order to have a fair and equally representative government. Chapter 2, The Constitution and Democracy, states:

On the fourth of July 1776 a group of harcore American people said no more. No more to tyranny and government corruption. No, to a government that takes away their rights and increased control over their lives. Those same men later took up arms with the same firearms their government was trying to take from them and raised hell against the tyrants of England. Government corruption has always existed and always will exist which is why we need to arm ourselves in case such a scenario arises in our own country. The writers of our Constitution, the longest standing constitution in the world, guarantees our right to keep and bear arms and no government institution can take that away.

A democratic republic, while it is definitely the better system, is closer to tyranny than a pure democracy. Little would get done if everything was a vote, however, no one would ever do something tyrannical. There is a lot more corruption and tyranny in the republic system because certain people gain power when in a pure democracy, everyone has the same power and will be able to have an input on everything. However, a pure democracy would be very inefficient, putting everything to a vote would take forever and there would be a lot of disputes. A democratic republic gives the power to the people without being inefficient.

Democracy doesn’t protect the rights of each citizen and his or her property. Republic, on the other hand, does. Why is this better? Protected rights are more beneficial to the citizens. A simple majority vote can not change Citizens' rights. In a Democracy, rights of the majority can overwhelm the rights of the minority. For example, if the citizens voted on taking someone’s property, the government wouldn’t protect that person’s rights. There would be nothing stopping the citizens from taking away his or her rights. This isn’t fair and isn’t good for the

There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.

A republic is the exact opposite of monarchy in that there are elections to choose who sits in charge. A liberated, non-biased election is provided to the voters who have as much choice as the members who are running for office. Also, a republic involves a parliamentary system that allows for a balance of the power. This distribution is an editing mechanism for laws and government decisions. This is perfectly illustrated within the United States government: a process called checks and balances. So, even there is one dominant leader, their control is limited so that a dictatorship does not ensue. Another advantage to a republic is the effortless way a government structure can change in order to appease its citizens. reform within a republic is inevitable. James Basil Barnhill, the author of Indictment of Socialism, perfectly describes the role of democracy in writing “When the people fear the government, that's tyranny; when the government fears the people, that's freedom.” (Barnhill,

In the case that politicians do not live up to the ideals and criteria they were chosen for, a merit of democracy is that it allows the citizenry to punish these officials – not necessarily through extreme forms like impeachment, but perhaps by simply electing someone else in the forthcoming election. While, as previously addressed, not all participants in the election process vote based on truthful information, some citizens do. It must be remembered that not only those in authority

Both the pure democracy and the republic are centered around the ideal that the commoners have equal say in the decision making process, typically this is done through a representative system (congress, senate, parliament, executives or others) to simplify the voting and decision making process. Where they differ is in the fact that a Constitutional Republic provides protection to the rights of minorities from the will of the majority; in a true democracy the majority rules over minority groups without limit. The citizens of the United States enjoy the protection of a strong constitution, made even stronger by its first ten amendments: The Bill of Rights. Minority viewpoints in the United States are protected by the constitution and its amendments, it is this constitution that prohibits the oppression of minority groups by majority groups.