Re: Assaults on the England language/"republican" v."democracy"
As always, I will be happy to send the relevant paper to all interested parties. it is forthcoming in an anthology from Oxford. MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 10:34AM >>>Mark: Do you have a particular case or series of cases in mind? I'd appreciate a cite. Thanks, Richard Dougherty Mark Graber wrote: For those interested, until 1939, not one majority opinion on the Supreme Court spoke of the United States as a democracy or had anything good to say about democracy (Brandeis did, but in concurring and dissenting opinions). The floodgates opened in 1939. MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 08:32AM >>>In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim as Democrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view that Democrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisions on matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves as more democratic than Democrats. Mark is on to something that transcends this thread and probably should be discussed on the ConlawProf List. In my view, the terms "democratic" and "democracy" have replaced the term "republican" in popular culture, and even in the use of pretty sophisticated statespersons, politicians, constitutionalists, and jurists. Most of the features of republican theory--such as, representative democracy, the common good, civic virtue, and so forth--have been absorbed by the term "democracy." Indeed, I would venture a guess that the use of "republican," save for occasional use on radio talk shows, is reserved, of course only for the most part, to political philosophy. Thus, when people talk about self-rule or self-government, they usually think of democracy not republicanism. One continued use--a tedious one in my view--still appears in discussions of the countermajoritarian problem or when indicting the Court for being antidemocratic. Accusing the courts of being countermajoritarian or antidemocratic is met with the predictable refrain "The Constitution creates a republic not a democracy." In my view, this distinction, or shall I say this dichotomy, is typically a conversation-stopper, and forestalls the pursuit of the best theory of democracy. I suspect that this point, regrettably, is still controversial; but in my view it should not be. Strictly speaking, few commentators advocate pure majoritarianism or even pure directdemocracy. Thus, I would think "republicanism" should be granted a well-deserved retirement. All the distinctions and points that some think can only be articulated by using "republican" can be made through the capacious tent of "democracy," and that's where they should be made. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Assaults on the England language/"republican" v."democracy"
Mark: Do you have a particular case or series of cases in mind? I'd appreciate a cite. Thanks, Richard Dougherty Mark Graber wrote: For those interested, until 1939, not one majority opinion on the Supreme Court spoke of the United States as a democracy or had anything good to say about democracy (Brandeis did, but in concurring and dissenting opinions). The floodgates opened in 1939. MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 08:32AM >>>In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim as Democrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view that Democrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisions on matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves as more democratic than Democrats. Mark is on to something that transcends this thread and probably should be discussed on the ConlawProf List. In my view, the terms "democratic" and "democracy" have replaced the term "republican" in popular culture, and even in the use of pretty sophisticated statespersons, politicians, constitutionalists, and jurists. Most of the features of republican theory--such as, representative democracy, the common good, civic virtue, and so forth--have been absorbed by the term "democracy." Indeed, I would venture a guess that the use of "republican," save for occasional use on radio talk shows, is reserved, of course only for the most part, to political philosophy. Thus, when people talk about self-rule or self-government, they usually think of democracy not republicanism. One continued use--a tedious one in my view--still appears in discussions of the countermajoritarian problem or when indicting the Court for being antidemocratic. Accusing the courts of being countermajoritarian or antidemocratic is met with the predictable refrain "The Constitution creates a republic not a democracy." In my view, this distinction, or shall I say this dichotomy, is typically a conversation-stopper, and forestalls the pursuit of the best theory of democracy. I suspect that this point, regrettably, is still controversial; but in my view it should not be. Strictly speaking, few commentators advocate pure majoritarianism or even pure directdemocracy. Thus, I would think "republicanism" should be granted a well-deserved retirement. All the distinctions and points that some think can only be articulated by using "republican" can be made through the capacious tent of "democracy," and that's where they should be made. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Assaults on the England language/"republican" v. "democracy"
Although "republicanism" and its cognates have a venerable heritage predating the American experiment in self-government, we must be mindful of the Founders use of this term, which in part was to distance the halls of government from participation by ordinary people. (Gary Nash recently published a book describing the role of ordinary people in the American Revolution; in his view, from what I have read, their role was pervasive and critical.) Instead, Fisher Ames comments exemplified our early denigration of democracy: "[O]ur government should be a republick, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from despotism." I doubt any contemporary thinkers would classify democracy as closer to despotism than republicanism. And if any would, in my view, they would be dead wrong. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Assaults on the England language/"republican" v. "democracy"
For those interested, until 1939, not one majority opinion on the Supreme Court spoke of the United States as a democracy or had anything good to say about democracy (Brandeis did, but in concurring and dissenting opinions). The floodgates opened in 1939. MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 08:32AM >>> In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves asmore democratic than Democrats. Mark is on to something that transcends this thread and probably should be discussed on the ConlawProf List. In my view, the terms "democratic" and "democracy" have replaced the term "republican" in popular culture, and even in the use of pretty sophisticated statespersons, politicians, constitutionalists, and jurists. Most of the features of republican theory--such as, representative democracy, the common good, civic virtue, and so forth--have been absorbed by the term "democracy." Indeed, I would venture a guess that the use of "republican," save for occasional use on radio talk shows, is reserved, of course only for the most part, to political philosophy. Thus, when people talk about self-rule or self-government, they usually think of democracy not republicanism. One continued use--a tedious one in my view--still appears in discussions of the countermajoritarian problem or when indicting the Court for being antidemocratic. Accusing the courts of being countermajoritarian or antidemocratic is met with the predictable refrain "The Constitution creates a republic not a democracy." In my view, this distinction, or shall I say this dichotomy, is typically a conversation-stopper, and forestalls the pursuit of the best theory of democracy. I suspect that this point, regrettably, is still controversial; but in my view it should not be. Strictly speaking, few commentators advocate pure majoritarianism or even pure direct democracy. Thus, I would think "republicanism" should be granted a well-deserved retirement. All the distinctions and points that some think can only be articulated by using "republican" can be made through the capacious tent of "democracy," and that's where they should be made. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Assaults on the England language/"republican" v. "democracy"
In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves asmore democratic than Democrats. Mark is on to something that transcends this thread and probably should be discussed on the ConlawProf List. In my view, the terms "democratic" and "democracy" have replaced the term "republican" in popular culture, and even in the use of pretty sophisticated statespersons, politicians, constitutionalists, and jurists. Most of the features of republican theory--such as, representative democracy, the common good, civic virtue, and so forth--have been absorbed by the term "democracy." Indeed, I would venture a guess that the use of "republican," save for occasional use on radio talk shows, is reserved, of course only for the most part, to political philosophy. Thus, when people talk about self-rule or self-government, they usually think of democracy not republicanism. One continued use--a tedious one in my view--still appears in discussions of the countermajoritarian problem or when indicting the Court for being antidemocratic. Accusing the courts of being countermajoritarian or antidemocratic is met with the predictable refrain "The Constitution creates a republic not a democracy." In my view, this distinction, or shall I say this dichotomy, is typically a conversation-stopper, and forestalls the pursuit of the best theory of democracy. I suspect that this point, regrettably, is still controversial; but in my view it should not be. Strictly speaking, few commentators advocate pure majoritarianism or even pure direct democracy. Thus, I would think "republicanism" should be granted a well-deserved retirement. All the distinctions and points that some think can only be articulated by using "republican" can be made through the capacious tent of "democracy," and that's where they should be made. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
