[Kaizyn]

First of all, it is a republic and not a democracy. The difference is quite important. Secondly, to attribute the problems to the constitution is mistaken. That founding document is the only thing standing in the way of a complete and total disaster for the country.

Nearly all the problems can be traced back to where politicians are ignoring the constitution in part or in full and thereby eroding the public protections built into the republic.

[eevilspock]

Taxonomies are not always mutually exclusive.

The other answers remind me of my son as a toddler: FURIOUS as he explained: "It is NOT green. It is ROUND!!"

"It is not a democracy, it is a republic" is every bit as mistaken.

Read the rest at: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-a-dem...

[Brakenshire]

On the other hand, the US has a legalistic style of politics which you could blame on people relying too much on the constitution. The US is like an oppositional court room, with each side tearing at each other to get as much benefit as they can. It does diminish the shared duty to do what is right and good for the country and the democracy.

Although of course the US is also a relatively fractured country by its nature, so perhaps can't rely on a vague, shared sense of what is good and decent, in the same way as a small European country, with more or less a common ethnic and cultural identity.

[Kaizyn]

The purpose of the constitution is to protect the public from the tyranny of the government. And within the public, to protect the minorities from the majority.

[gnaritas]

> First of all, it is a republic and not a democracy.

That's like saying it's a dog not an animal; our republic is also a democracy, they are not mutually exclusive terms so please stop saying this nonsense.

[Kaizyn]

No, we have a republic. Fundamentally different animal.

In a democracy, the public could vote to do something that would be considered wrong such as stripping voting rights from everyone who likes country music. And with majority rule, that would pass and become law of the land.

In a republic like ours, the constitution governs what can and cannot be enacted by the majority. Since such an act would take away guaranteed minority rights, the constitution prevents the majority from doing something like that.

[gnaritas]

> No, we have a republic. Fundamentally different animal.

No it's not, and it's really sad and tiring such a simple concept escapes so many people. Please take a course in government and learn the difference between these things you're conflating. Republics don't have to have constitutions and constitutional governments aren't necessarily republics. Republics can be democracies or not, ours is, not all are.

Our minority rights are protected because we're a constitutional government who has protections for those things; that has nothing to do with our being a republic.

[Pulcinella]

First of all, a republic is a type of democracy...

[gnaritas]

No, ours is, but not all republics are democracies. Republic just means we don't have a monarchy and leaders are chosen by some other means. It doesn't mean that means is a democracy.

[Kaizyn]

No, it's a republic because it has a constitution that sets out the rules for what the government is and is not allowed to do. Democracies give the people absolute rule, whereas the constitution denies a majority from enacting certain laws that violate the constitution.

[gnaritas]

Having a constitution just makes a country "constitutional", it doesn't make it a republic. You're conflating being constitutional with being a republic, they are different things; we are both of those things, but they are unrelated things. We are a republic because we don't have a monarchy, that's all it means. Our minority rights are protected because we're a constitutional government who has protections for those things; that has nothing to do with our being a republic.