Građanske definicije - što je republika - povijest

Građanske definicije - što je republika - povijest


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Sve što znamo o Vojsci građanske republike, Helikopterskoj skupini Walking Dead

AMC -ovi Hodajući mrtvaci franšiza se širi s novim emisijama, novim filmovima i novim vezama između tri emisije u svemiru Walking Dead, Hodajući mrtvaci, Boj se živih mrtvaca, i The Walking Dead: World Beyond. Osim zombija, vezivno tkivo između svih emisija je sjenovita skupina poznata kao Civil Civil Republic Military ili CRM.

CRM je prvi put nazvan Hodajući mrtvaci 8. sezona, a grupa je na kraju odvela Ricka Grimesa (Andrew Lincoln) iz Aleksandrije helikopterom prema njegovim budućim filmskim avanturama. Od tada su se pojavili na Boj se živih mrtvaca, i igrat će veliku ulogu u Svijet izvan, koji je predstavio lik koji služi kao zaštitno lice grupe, potpukovnik Elizabeth Kublek (Julia Ormond).

Grupa je još uvijek obavijena misterijom, ali zapravo smo dosta naučili o njima jer su se informacije dijelile dio po dio. Evo što do sada znamo o Vojsci građanske republike.

Tko su oni?

CRM je vojna ruka Građanske Republike, članica Saveza trojice, mreže tri zajednice koje udružuju svoje resurse kako bi bolje preživjele zombi apokalipsu. Savez simboliziraju tri međusobno povezana kruga, obilježje koje se pojavljuje na uniformama i opremi zajednica članica. Tri zajednice su Građanska Republika, čija je lokacija strogo čuvana tajna čak i od ostalih članica Saveza, ali može biti negdje u državi New York, gradu Omahi, Nebraski i koloniji kampusa Omaha, gdje Svijet s onu stranu Satelitska ispostava zajednice i Portland, Oregon, zajednica o kojoj ništa nije otkriveno osim što postoji.

Građanska Republika pokušava obnoviti društvo u nešto poput onoga što je postojalo prije. Imaju bolju tehnologiju od bilo koga drugog na bilo kojoj od emisija do sada, o čemu svjedoče njihovi helikopteri, futuristička odijela otporna na ugrize i znanstvena spretnost. Aktivno rade na pokušajima pronalaska lijeka za zombi virus. Vođa vojske Građanske republike je netko po imenu general bojnik Bill, ali lice grupe zasad je žena po imenu potpukovnica Elizabeth Kublek.

U seriji premijera Svijet s onu stranu, Kublek je u ime Građanske Republike posjetio koloniju kampusa Omaha, navodno kako bi prisustvovao proslavi, ali doista kako bi prenio izvještaj Hope (Alexa Mansour) i Iris (Aliyah Royale) Bennett i na kraju likvidirao koloniju (o tome kasnije). Hopein i Irisin otac Leo (Joe Holt) znanstvenik je koji je na početku serije odsustvovao pomažući Građanskoj Republici u proučavanju virusa. Djevojke ne vjeruju Kubleku ili većoj Građanskoj republici jer su tajnovite i sjenovite, pa su joj to rekle u lice. Tako im je Kublek, u nastojanju da izgradi povjerenje, rekao da im otac predaje u istraživačkoj ustanovi Civic Republic u državi New York i dao im šifriranu kartu koja bi im mogla pomoći da ga pronađu - kartu za koju je rekla da bi je mogla uvesti mnogo problema ako je netko saznao da im je to dala.

Sljedećeg dana djevojčice su dobile faks od oca na kojem je pisalo & quot; ČUVANJE GLAVE. NAĆI ĆU POMOĆ. NEMOJTE GOVORITI VIJEĆU. & Quot Pa su krenuli u misiju da ga spasu, zajedno s još nekoliko pripadnika kolonije. Nakon što su otišli, Kublek i njezini vojnici masakrirali su cijelu koloniju.

Sydney Lemmon, Boj se živih mrtvaca

Što oni žele?

Pravi motivi CRM -a još su nepoznati. Čini se da njihovi ciljevi nisu čisto zlonamjerni, čak i ako su spremni učiniti strašne stvari u potrazi za svojim ciljem, što god to bilo. U & quotThe End of Everything & & quot Boj se živih mrtvaca epizoda koja je predstavila Isabelle (Sydney Lemmon), prvu članicu CRM -a koju smo malo upoznali, Isabelle nije htjela reći Althei (Maggie Grace) ništa konkretno o tome što CRM radi, ali rekla je da grade za budućnost, i osjećala se idealistično u pogledu njihove misije. "Mi smo sila koja ne živi za sebe ili za sada", rekla je Isabelle Al. & quotVi imate svoje priče, koje već čine svaki dan prošlošću. Imamo budućnost. & Quot Plus, Al i Isabelle dijelili su iskrenu romantičnu vezu i nije se činilo da je Isabelle zla.

Na Svijet s onu stranu, Kublek je, naizgled iskreno, rekla Iris da će jednog dana razumjeti što Građanska republika radi i doći će im vjerovati, ali tada je dala pobiti cijelu Irisinu zajednicu. Ali ne prije nego što je Iris i njezinoj sestri dala kartu koja će im pomoći spasiti oca. Ali ne znamo zašto je to učinila. To je mnogo ali što dovodi do mnogih pitanja!

Također zapravo ne znamo pravu svrhu niti jedne njihove misije. Gledatelji su prvi put upoznali CRM preko Jadis (Pollyanna McIntosh), koja je s njima trgovala u svojstvu vođe Heapstera. U zamjenu za zalihe, dala im je ljude. Dala im je Heatha (Corey Hawkins), koji je nestao u 7. sezoni, a ona im je pokušala dati Negana (Jeffrey Dean Morgan)-međutim, tadašnji vođa Spasitelja osujetio je taj napor. Kasnije im je umalo dala oca Gabriela (Seth Gilliam), ali se u posljednji trenutak predomislila. Konačno, ugledala je teško ranjenog Ricka kako leži na obali rijeke nakon što je raznio most, te ju je pozvala da ih pozove da dođu spasiti ga. CRM i Jadis kategorizirali su ljude koje im je dala ili kao & quotA & quot ili & quotB. & Quot Emisija nikada nije eksplicitno objasnila ove oznake, ali je implicirala da znače & quotstrong & quot i & quotweak. & Quot Kad su ga pokupili, Rick je bio B.

Na Svijet s onu stranu, ne znamo što je Kublek doista namjeravao. Hope je vidjela još četiri aviona koji su pratili Kublekov helikopter, ali ne znamo kamo su išli niti zašto je Kublek lagao i rekao da je helikopter putovao sam. Ne znamo zašto je ubila cijelu koloniju.

Na Boj se živih mrtvaca, Isabelle je tražila zalihe - posebno benzin - i radila izviđanje na jednom od mnogih teritorija koji pripadaju toj skupini. No detalji o njezinoj misiji bili su povjerljivi.

Tijekom Boj se živih mrtvacaNa panelu [email protected] u srpnju 2020. Scott Gimple rekao je da ćemo u budućnosti saznati više o Isabelle, a nakon što smo pogledali premijeru Svijet s onu stranu, čini se vjerojatno da je potpukovnik Kublek Isabelleina majka. Kublek je rekao Iris i Hope da ima kćer koja je malo starija od njih i vojnika koji odlazi pokušavajući pomoći vratiti svijet, što je vrlo slično onome što je Isabelle rekla Alu.

The Walking Dead: World Beyond

Odakle su oni?

Ne možemo sa sigurnošću reći, ali znakovi ukazuju na područje metroa New York City. Leo Bennett nalazi se negdje u New Yorku, a posljednji na Michonneovoj (Danai Gurira) Hodajući mrtvac U ovoj je epizodi pronašla dokaze da je Rick još uvijek bio živ, mnogo godina nakon što je odveden, te da je relativno nedavno bio na brodu koji je nastao u luci New Jersey.

No moguće je da teritorij Građanske Republike pokriva mnogo zemlje. Isabelle je bila u Teksasu, koji je vrlo udaljen od regije Sjeverne Virginije u koju je odveden Rick, a koja je i sama prilično udaljena od New Yorka. U [email protected] Juliju Ormond upitali su zna li Kublek gdje je Rick Grimes. "Ako Elizabeth zna gdje je Rick, nisam sigurna da bi vam to rekla", odgovorila je. & quotI ako vam Elizabeth kaže, nisam siguran da joj trebate vjerovati, a ja, Julia, neću ništa reći jer bih voljela zadržati svoj posao. & quot

Jedno što zasigurno znamo je da Građanska republika nije Commonwealth, vrlo napredna zajednica koja se u stripu nalazila u Toledu, Ohio. Glavni urednik za sadržaj Walking Dead Universe Scott Gimple izrazito je rekao da Ricka tamo nisu odveli. Commonwealth je predstavljen u emisiji u epizodi & quotA Izvjesna propast & quot; i saznat ćemo više o njima kad Hodajući mrtvaci vraća. No, crveno-bijela odijela njihovih vojnika bila su vrlo različita od potpuno crnih odijela CRM-a, i očito im je nedostajao simbol Tri prstena Saveza Trojice.

Kada ćemo naučiti više?

U ovom trenutku najbolje je pogledati 1. sezonu Svijet s onu stranu i 6. sezona od Boj se živih mrtvaca, čija je premijera 11. listopada, jer se vjerojatno nadovezuju na neku vrstu crossover događaja koji će kulminirati u prvom filmu Ricka Grimesa. Pretpostavljamo! Morat ćemo pričekati i vidjeti što Scott Gimple sprema.

Hodajući mrtvaci vratit će se za još šest epizoda 10. sezone početkom 2021. Boj se živih mrtvaca premijerno prikazuje nedjelju, 11. listopada u 21:00 na AMC -u, i The Walking Dead: World Beyond emitira se nedjeljom u 10/9c na AMC -u. Film Rick Grimesa još je u razvoju.


Građanske definicije - što je republika - povijest

demokracija, republika, Commonwealth (imenica)

politički sustav u kojem vrhovna vlast leži u tijelu građana koje može birati ljude koji će ih predstavljati

oblik vladavine čiji šef države nije monarh

"šef države u republici obično je predsjednik"

Wiktionary (3.00 / 3 glasova) Ocijenite ovu definiciju:

Država u kojoj suverenitet počiva na narodu ili njegovim predstavnicima, a ne na monarhu ili caru u zemlji bez monarhije.

Sjedinjene Države su republika Velika Britanija je tehnički monarhija.

Etimologija: Iz république, izvedeno iz res publica, iz res + publicus stoga doslovno "javna stvar".

Država, koja može i ne mora biti monarhija, u kojoj su izvršna i zakonodavna grana vlasti odvojene. (arhaično)

Republikanizam je političko načelo odvajanja izvršne vlasti (uprave) od zakonodavnog despotizma, a to je načelo autonomnog izvršavanja zakona koje je sam odredio. . Stoga možemo reći: što je manji broj osoblja vlade (što je manji broj vladara), to je njihova zastupljenost veća i što se ustav više približava mogućnosti republikanizma pa se ustav može očekivati ​​postupnom reformom konačno uzdići se do republikanizma. Niti jedna od drevnih takozvanih "republika" nije poznavala ovaj sustav, a sve su konačno i neizbježno izrodile u despotizam pod suverenitetom jedne, koja je najpodnošljivija od svih oblika despotizma. uE00018089uE001 Immanuel Kant, Vječni mir

Etimologija: Iz république, izvedeno iz res publica, iz res + publicus stoga doslovno "javna stvar".

Jedan od pododjeljaka koji čine Rusiju. Vidi oblast.

Republika Udmurtija je zapadno od Permske oblasti.

Etimologija: Iz république, izvedeno iz res publica, iz res + publicus stoga doslovno "javna stvar".

Webster rječnik (0,00 / 0 glasova) Ocijenite ovu definiciju:

Etimologija: [F. rpublique, L. respublica commonwealth res a thing, affair + publicus, publica, public. Vidi Real, a. I Public.]

država u kojoj suverena vlast prebiva u cijelom tijelu naroda, a vrše je predstavnici koje su oni izabrali kao zajednicu. Usp. Demokracija, 2

Etimologija: [F. rpublique, L. respublica commonwealth res a thing, affair + publicus, publica, public. Vidi Real, a. I Public.]

Freebase (1.00 / 1 glas) Ocijenite ovu definiciju:

Republika je oblik vladavine u kojem su državni poslovi "javna stvar", a ne privatna briga vladara. U republici se javne funkcije imenuju ili biraju, a ne nasljeđuju, i nisu privatno vlasništvo ljudi koji ih obnašaju. U moderno doba uobičajena pojednostavljena definicija republike je vlada u kojoj šef države nije monarh. Trenutno 135 od 206 suverenih država svijeta koristi riječ "republika" kao dio svojih službenih naziva. I moderne i drevne republike uvelike se razlikuju po svojoj ideologiji i sastavu. U klasično i srednjovjekovno doba arhetip svih republika bila je Rimska republika, koja se odnosila na Rim između razdoblja kada je imao kraljeve i razdoblja kada je imala careve. Talijanska srednjovjekovna i renesansna politička tradicija koja se danas naziva "građanski humanizam" ponekad se smatra da potječe izravno od rimskih republikanaca poput Sallusta i Tacita. Međutim, rimski autori pod utjecajem Grka, poput Polibija i Cicerona, ponekad su također koristili taj izraz kao prijevod za grčku politeiju koja je mogla značiti općenito režim, ali se također mogla primijeniti na određene specifične vrste režima koje nisu baš odgovarale tom rimske republike. Republike nisu bile izjednačene s klasičnim demokracijama poput Atene, već su imale demokratski aspekt.

Chambers Dictionary 20th Century Dictionary (0.00 / 0 glasova) Ocijenite ovu definiciju:

r ē-pub & primelik, n. Commonwealth: oblik vladavine bez monarha, u kojem vrhovnu vlast imaju predstavnici koje bira narod. & mdashprid. Repub & primelican , koji pripadaju republici: u skladu s načelima republike. & mdashn. onaj koji zagovara republikanski oblik vladavine: demokrata: jedna od dvije velike političke stranke u Sjedinjenim Državama, koje se protive Demokrati, zalažući se za visoku zaštitnu tarifu, liberalne izdatke i proširenje ovlasti nacionalne vlade. & mdashv.t. Repub & primelicanise . & mdashn. Repub & primelicanism , načela republičke vlasti: privrženost republičkoj vlasti. & mdashn. Republika ā & primer . & mdashRepublika slova, naziv za opće tijelo književnih i učenih ljudi. & mdashRepublikansko doba, doba koje su usvojili Francuzi nakon pada monarhije, počevši od 22. rujna 1792. & mdashCrveni republikanac, nasilni republikanac, iz crvene kapice zahvaćene takvim. [Fr. république& mdashL. republika, Commonwealth.]

The Nuttall Encyclopedia (2,00 / 2 glasova) Ocijenite ovu definiciju:

naziv koji je dobio država u kojoj suverenu vlast ima jedna ili više zajednica koje je izabrala zajednica i za koje su joj odgovarali, iako u stvari zajednica i u Rimu i u Mletačkoj Republici nije mogla birati nikoga izvan povlaštenog reda.

Doprinos urednika (0,00 / 0 glasova) Ocijenite ovu definiciju:

Je li vladin sustav u kojem je demokratska vlast s građanima službene dobi za glasovanje koji su ovlašteni birati ljude u vladu jedinstva kroz transparentan i pošten oblik sustava glasovanja s proporcionalnom zastupljenošću.

Mnoge zemlje svijeta su republike. npr. Republika Irska, Republika Kongo.

Britanski nacionalni korpus

Rangiranje popularnosti riječi "Republika" u učestalosti govornog korpusa: #2301


Građanske definicije - što je republika - povijest

Često političari i mnogi obični Amerikanci nazivaju Sjedinjene Države demokracijom. Drugi smatraju da je ovo otežavajuće jer, za razliku od demokracije u kojoj građani izravno glasaju o zakonima, u Sjedinjenim Državama to čine izabrani predstavnici - i, prema tome, SAD su republika.

Srećom, oboje su u pravu! Evo zašto:#8217 zašto:

Zagovornici “Republic ” definiraju “demokratiju ” kako se izvorno koristila. Nazvan naizmjenično “izravna demokracija ” ili “čista demokracija, ” u ovom obliku vladavine, umjesto da predstavnici glasaju o zakonima i drugim radnjama, svaki građanin može glasovati –, a većina o tome odlučuje.

Iako se na državnoj i lokalnoj razini povremeno koriste referendumi (npr. Legalizacija marihuane) i inicijative za glasanje (npr. Pitanja obveznica), gdje građani izravno glasaju o zakonodavstvu, u cjelini se o nekoliko stvari u Americi odlučuje na ovaj način 8211 čak se ni predsjednik ne bira većinom glasova građana, već glasovima naših izbornih predstavnika.

Ovaj prezir prema čistoj demokraciji u Americi seže do očeva utemeljitelja. Alexandru Hamiltonu se to nije svidjelo: “Stvarna se sloboda nikada ne nalazi u despotizmu niti u ekstremima demokracije. ” Ni Samuel Adams: “Sjeti se da demokracija nikada ne traje dugo. Uskoro se troši, iscrpljuje i ubija! ”

Pa oko čega su radili? Osim povijesnih primjera, vidjeli su čistu demokraciju na djelu širom mlade nacije u državnim vladama uspostavljenim nakon Deklaracije neovisnosti, ali prije američkog Ustava:

Zakonodavna tijela ponašala su se kao da su praktički svemoćna. Nije bilo učinkovitih državnih ustava koji bi ograničavali zakonodavna tijela jer je većina državnih vlada djelovala u skladu s običnim zakonima svojih zakonodavnih tijela koji su pogrešno označeni kao "ustave." djelotvoran ograničavajući utjecaj na zakonodavna tijela u obrani neotuđivih prava Pojedinaca, kada su povrijeđena zakonodavnim povredama.

Thomas Jefferson iz prve je ruke u Virginiji doživio ove povrede:

Sve ovlasti vlade, zakonodavne, izvršne, sudbene imaju zakonodavno tijelo. Njihovo koncentriranje u istim rukama upravo je definicija despotske vlade. Neće biti olakšanje da će se ova ovlaštenja vršiti većim brojem ruku, a ne jednom. 173 despota zasigurno bi bili tlačitelji kao jedan.

Massachusetts ’ Elbridge Gerry složio se: “Zla koja doživljavamo proizlaze iz viška demokracije, ” kao i bivši guverner Virginije Edmund Randolph koji je svoju želju za republikom opisao na Ustavnoj konvenciji 1787 .:

Da bi osigurali lijek za zla pod kojima su se Sjedinjene Države trudile da ih je svaki čovjek pronašao u tragovima do njihovog podrijetla u turbulencijama i kušnjama demokracije.

Mnogi su čistu demokraciju vidjeli kao oblik vladavine koji se neizbježno izrodio u anarhiju ili tiraniju vladavine “mob. ” To je zasigurno bilo zapažanje Jamesa Madisona koji je Jeffersonu napisao: “U Virginiji Vidio sam da je zakon o pravima povrijeđen u svim slučajevima kada se suprotstavlja popularnoj struji. ”

U strahu od ove tiranije većine, osnivači su jasno i izričito uspostavili ustavnu republiku u kojoj se zakoni donose i upravljaju putem predstavnika i ovlastima ograničenim pisanim ustavom. Utemeljitelji i drugi prosvjetiteljski mislioci vjerovali su da će:

Pomozite u zaštiti od većinske tiranije filtriranjem želja ljudi putem racionalne diskrecije drugih predstavnika. . . . [i] pomoći u sprječavanju vladinih radnji da pojedincima oduzmu njihova prava, čak i kad te radnje podržava većina - ponekad i ogromna većina - ljudi. . .

Dakle, jasno je da su Sjedinjene Države republika.

“Demokracija ” potječe od grčkih izraza demo što znači “uobičajeni ljudi ” i kratos značenje “vlada, snaga ” koje su zajedno prerasle u demokratia što znači “popularna vlada. ”

Malo bi tko rekao da vlada Sjedinjenih Država ne crpi svoju moć iz svog naroda. Zapravo, jedan od najvećih američkih predsjednika, Abraham Lincoln, opisao je našu naciju kao da ima narodnu vladu, od strane ljudi [i] za ljude. ”

Zagovornici Amerike kao demokracije identificiraju nekoliko temeljnih načela zajedničkih demokracijama, uključujući i demokratsko predstavljanje, vladavinu prava i ustavnu zaštitu, a to je u skladu s Aristotelovim primarnim kriterijem za demokraciju, a to je da svaki osoba podijeljena u “brojnoj jednakosti. ”

Američka vlada u moderno doba također je odbacila ograničene definicije čiste demokracije i izravne demokracije u korist proširene verzije:

Demokracija je institucionalizacija slobode. . . . [O] dužnu i građansku odgovornost ostvaruju svi punoljetni građani, izravno ili preko svojih slobodno izabranih predstavnika. . . . [gdje] sve razine vlasti moraju biti što pristupačnije i odgovornije ljudima. . . . [i] štititi osnovna ljudska prava poput slobode govora i vjeroispovijesti. . . jednaka zakonska zaštita. . . [i] mogućnost da se u potpunosti organiziraju i sudjeluju u političkom, gospodarskom i kulturnom životu društva.

To je zasigurno slučaj u Americi i svakoj od njezinih pedeset država. Dakle, jasno je da su Sjedinjene Države, prema modernoj definiciji tog pojma, demokracija.

Osnivači su od početka namjeravali osnovati:

“Miješana ” vlada koja je kombinirala najbolja svojstva triju čistih oblika (monarhija, aristokracija i demokracija) i koja je pružala ‘ provjere ’ protiv njihove korupcije u apsolutizam.

I čini se da su uspjeli. Komentator Gary Gutting okarakterizirao je našu hibridnu republiku kao: “multarhija . . . složeno ispreplitanje mnogih oblika vladavine - doista, svih pet Platonovih pet tipova [aristokracija, timarhija, oligarhija, demokracija i tiranija]. ”

Progresivni pisac i voditelj talk showa Thom Hartman to naziva:

Ustavno ograničena reprezentativna demokratska republika [gdje]. . . ustav, ograničava moć vlade. Mi biramo predstavnike, pa to nije čista demokracija. Ali biramo ih većinom, pa je to demokratski. A oblik, infrastruktura, ukupni oblik vladavine je republički, to je republika.

Profesor Peter Levine slaže se s tim i zaključuje: “U konačnici, Sjedinjene Američke Države mogu se nazvati republikanskim i demokratski. ”

Ako vam se svidio ovaj članak, možda ćete uživati ​​i u našem novom popularnom podcastu, The BrainFood Show (iTunes, Spotify, Google Play glazba, Feed), kao i:

43 komentara

Tipično američko razmišljanje. Velika Britanija je monarhija, ali je i demokracija. Demokracija je politička struktura, a ne oblik vlasti. Možete imati republiku i oligarhiju poput Mletačke republike i to neće biti demokracija.

I ja sam zaprepašten što članak o američkoj vladi odražava “tipično američko razmišljanje ”. Mislim, koji vrag

Problem je u tome što je to tipično mišljenje američke desnice. To možete reći kad god proguglate temu. Probaj.

Pa …Okvirirajte pitanje – Definirajte pojmove – Navedite povijesne primjere i na kraju dajte deklarativnu izjavu na temelju prethodnih radnji. To je tipično američko desničarsko mišljenje?

@Mike, britanski iznimnjak. žao mi je što ste izgubili i zaglavili ste u starom svjetskom sustavu.

Amerika je reprezentativna republika & Pokriva dio demokracije kao pokrivač kako bi u potpunosti izbjegla biti demokracija. Demokracije su same po sebi zle.

Republika je samo jedna vrsta demokracije ergo, ako je demokracija zla onda je i republika.

To što ste republika ne znači da ne možete biti ni demokracija. Često čujem kako se ljudi raspravljaju (često prilično militantno) da su Sjedinjene Države republika, a ne demokracija. Ali to je lažna podvojenost. Uobičajena definicija “republike” je, citiram American Heritage Dictionary, “politički poredak u kojem vrhovna vlast leži u tijelu građana koji imaju pravo glasati za časnike i predstavnike koji su za njih odgovorni” - to smo mi. Uobičajena definicija “demokracije” je, “Narodna vlada, koja se provodi izravno ili putem izabranih predstavnika” - to smo i mi.

Sjedinjene Države nisu izravna demokracija, u smislu zemlje u kojoj se zakoni (i druge vladine odluke) donose pretežno većinom glasova. Neka se donošenja zakona rade na ovaj način, na državnoj i lokalnoj razini, ali to je samo mali dio svih donošenja zakona. Ali mi smo predstavnička demokracija, koja je oblik demokracije.

Ista dva značenja "demokracije" (ponekad izravna demokracija, ponekad općenito narodna samouprava) postojala su i pri osnivanju republike. Neki komentatori iz doba kadriranja iznijeli su argumente koji razlikuju “demokraciju” i “republiku”, na primjer, federaliste (br. 10), kao i druge brojeve federalističkih listova. No, čak i u to doba, "predstavnička demokracija" shvaćena je kao oblik demokracije, uz "čistu demokraciju": John Adams je 1794. upotrijebio izraz "predstavnička demokracija", pa je tako i Noah Webster 1785., pa i St. George Tucker u svojoj 1803. godini. izdanje Blackstona, pa tako i Thomas Jefferson 1815. Tuckerov Blackstone također koristi "demokraciju" za opis reprezentativne demokracije, čak i kad je kvalifikator "predstavnik" izostavljen. Slično, James Wilson, jedan od glavnih pisaca Ustava i jedan od prvih sudaca Vrhovnog suda, branio je Ustav 1787. govoreći o tri oblika vladavine koji su „monarhijski, aristokratski i demokratski“, te je rekao da je u demokracije, suverena vlast „svojstvena je narodu, koju ostvaruju sami ili njihovi predstavnici“. Vrhovni sudac John Marshall - koji je pomogao voditi borbu u Virdžinijskoj konvenciji iz 1788. za ratifikaciju Ustava SAD - također je branio Ustav u toj konvenciji opisujući ga kao provedbu "demokracije" (za razliku od "despotizma"), i bez potrebe da se čak dodati kvalifikator "predstavnik".

Sir William Blackstone, kojeg su tvorci mnogo čitali i cijenili, također je upotrijebio "demokraciju" da uključi republike: "Barun Montesquieu to postavlja, da je luksuz neophodan u monarhijama, kao u Francuskoj, ali uništavajući demokracije, kao u Nizozemskoj. S obzirom na Englesku, čija je vlada sastavljena od obje vrste, još uvijek može biti dvojbeno pitanje koliko je privatni luksuz javno zlo ... " Nizozemska je, naravno, bila republika, a Engleska je sastavljena od monarhije i vlade od strane izabranih predstavnika - Blackstone je tako označio takvu vlast od strane izabranih predstavnika kao oblik "demokracije [y]".

I evo kako je "demokracija" poput "gotovine" (i poput mnogih drugih riječi). Ako to plaćate u trgovini, što to znači? To znači da plaćate računima i kovanicama, a ne čekom ili kreditnom karticom. No ako kuću kupujete za gotovinu, znači li to da se pojavljujete s aktovkom punom računa ili kovanica? Ako niste u nekim čudnim poslovima, vjerojatno ne. Slično, kad su ljudi u doba kadriranja raspravljali o narodnoj vlasti, a ne o vlasti u kojoj većina ljudi nije imala glas, često su koristili “demokraciju” (ili “demokratsku” ili “demokratsku”) u značenju “ne monarhija ili despotizam” ili aristokracija ", s" demo- "koji se odnosi na narodnu kontrolu (što bi postalo Lincolnova" narodna vlada, za narod i od strane naroda. "No, kad su raspravljali o predstavničkoj vlasti, a ne o izravnoj, često su koristili "Demokracija" ili "čista demokracija" znači "ne predstavnička vlast", a "demo-" se odnosi na narodno odlučivanje.

Isto je i danas. Amerika je demokracija, jer nije monarhija ili diktatura. (Neki ljudi tvrde da je previše oligarhična, u tom slučaju bi rekli da Amerika nije dovoljno demokratska - ali opet bi razlikovali demokraciju od oligarhije.) Amerika nije demokracija u smislu izravne demokracije. Ako se pitate hoćete li nešto učiniti izravnim glasovanjem ili reprezentativnim postupcima, mogli biste se zapitati trebamo li biti demokratičniji ili više republikanski. Ako se pitate bi li Kini bilo bolje dati veća ovlaštenja kineskim biračima, mogli biste se zapitati treba li biti demokratičnija ili manje demokratska, osim što mislite da bi demokracija trebala biti izravna ili reprezentativna.

Svakako, osim što su predstavnička demokracija, Sjedinjene Države su i ustavna demokracija u kojoj sudovi u određenoj mjeri sputavaju demokratsku volju. I Sjedinjene Države su stoga također ustavna republika. Doista, Sjedinjene Države mogle bi se označiti kao ustavna federalna predstavnička demokracija.

A vi ste slomljena olovka. Ali tamo gdje se koristi jedna riječ, sa svim pojednostavljenjima koje ta nužna potreba uključuje, rade i "demokracija" i "republika". Doista, budući da bi izravna demokracija - opet, vlada u kojoj se svi ili većina zakona donose izravnim glasanjem javnosti - bila nepraktična s obzirom na broj i složenost zakona koje se očekuje da će donijeti bilo koja državna ili nacionalna vlada, nije iznenađujuće da kvalifikator "predstavnik" često bi bio izostavljen. Praktično govoreći, predstavnička demokracija je jedina demokracija koja postoji na bilo kojoj državnoj ili nacionalnoj razini. (Ponekad se koriste državni, pa čak i nacionalni referendumi, ali samo za vrlo mali dio donošenja zakona države ili nacije.) Demokracija, dakle, ima više značenja - kao i toliko riječi - i dugo ima više značenja. Možda mislite da bi engleski jezik ili politički diskurs bio bolji da demokracija ima samo jedno značenje. Ali ne možete proizvoljno odabrati to značenje i označiti suprotna značenja kao jezično pogrešna, čak i ako bi takvo jedno značenje bilo prikladnije.

Mislim da niti ne biste trebali ulagati toliki značaj u određenu riječ. Koncepti su važni Postoji važna razlika između procesa izravne demokracije i procesa predstavničke demokracije te između različitih stupnjeva izravnosti ili reprezentativnosti. Ali nemojte očekivati ​​da će engleski jezik kakav zapravo koristi veliki broj govornika engleskog jezika-od Adamsa, Jeffersona i Wilsona naniže-savršeno ili čak gotovo savršeno uhvatiti takve razlike.


Istražite Dictionary.com

Oblik vladavine u kojem vlast izričito pripada ljudima, koji pak svoju vlast ostvaruju putem izabranih predstavnika. Danas su pojmovi republika i demokracija praktički zamjenjivi, no povijesno su se ta dva pojma razlikovala. Demokracija je podrazumijevala izravnu vladavinu ljudi, koji su svi bili jednaki, dok je republika podrazumijevala sustav vlasti u kojem su volju naroda posredovali predstavnici, koji bi mogli biti mudriji i bolje obrazovani od prosječnog čovjeka. U ranoj američkoj republici, na primjer, zahtjev da glasači posjeduju imovinu i osnivanje institucija kao što je izborni kolegij imali su za cilj odvratiti vladu od izravnog izražavanja narodne volje.


Građansko obrazovanje u Sjedinjenim Državama

Promicanje republike i njezinih vrijednosti bila je važna briga za kreatore politike-utjecati na političku percepciju ljudi, potaknuti političko sudjelovanje i njegovati načela sadržana u Ustavu (npr. Sloboda, sloboda govora, građanska prava ). Predmet „Građanstvo“ integriran je u kurikulum i standarde sadržaja kako bi se poboljšalo razumijevanje demokratskih vrijednosti u obrazovnom sustavu. Građanska je literatura otkrila da je “uključivanje male djece u građanske aktivnosti od najranije dobi pozitivan prediktor njihovog sudjelovanja u kasnijem građanskom životu”. [1]

Kao akademski predmet, Civics ima nastavni cilj promicanje znanja koje je usklađeno sa samoupravom i sudjelovanjem u pitanjima od javnog interesa. [2] Ovi ciljevi zagovaraju upute koje potiču aktivno sudjelovanje učenika u demokratskim okruženjima za donošenje odluka, poput glasanja o izboru predstavnika kolegija za školsku upravu ili odlučivanja o radnjama koje će utjecati na školsko okruženje ili zajednicu. Stoga je presjek individualnih i kolektivnih aktivnosti donošenja odluka ključan za oblikovanje “moralnog razvoja pojedinca”. [1] To reach those goals, civic instructors must promote the adoption of certain skills and attitudes such as “respectful argumentation, debate, information literacy”, to support “the development of morally responsible individuals who will shape a morally responsible and civically minded society". [1] In the 21st century, young people are less interested in direct political participation (i.e. being in a political party or even voting), but are motivated to use digital media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). Digital media enable young people to share and exchange ideas rapidly, enabling the coordination of local communities that promote volunteerism and political activism, in topics principally related to human rights and environmental subjects. [3]

Young people are constructing and supporting their political identities in the 21st century by using social media, and digital tools (e.g. text messaging, hashtags, videos) to share, post, reply an opinion or attitude about a political/social topic and to promote social mobilization and support through online mechanism to a wide and diverse audience. Therefore, civics' end-goal in the 21st century must be oriented to “empower the learners to find issues in their immediate communities that seem important to the people with whom they live and associate”, once “learners have identified with a personal issue and participated in constructing a collective framing for common issues”. [3]

According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, one of the purposes of Civic Education is to “foster civic competence and responsibility” which is promoted through the Center for Civic Education’s We the People and Project Citizen initiatives. [4] However, there is a lack of consensus for how this mission should be pursued. The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) reviewed state civic education requirements in the United States for 2012. [5] The findings include: [6]

  • All 50 states have social studies standards which include civics and government.
  • 39 states require at least one course in government/civics. [napomena 1]
  • 21 states require a state-mandated social studies test which is a decrease from 2001 (34 states).
  • 8 states require students to take a state-mandated government/civics test.
  • 9 states require a social studies test as a requirement for high school graduation.

The lack of state-mandated student accountability relating to civics may be a result of a shift in emphasis towards reading and mathematics in response to the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. [7] There is a movement to require that states utilize the citizenship test as a graduation requirement, but this is seen as a controversial solution to some educators. [8]

Students are also demonstrating that their civic knowledge leaves much to be desired. A National Center for Education Statistics NAEP report card for civics (2010) stated that “levels of civic knowledge in U.S. have remained unchanged or even declined over the past century”. Specifically, only 24 percent of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders were at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in civics. [9] Traditionally, civic education has emphasized the facts of government processes detached from participatory experience. [10] In an effort to combat the existing approach, the National Council for the Social Studies developed the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. The C3 Framework emphasizes “new and active approaches” including the “discussion of controversial issues and current events, deliberation of public issues, service-learning, action civics, participation in simulation and role play, and the use of digital technologies”. [11]

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, among teens 12–17 years old, 95% have access to the Internet, 70% go online daily, 80% use social networking sites, and 77% have cell phones. [12] As a result, participatory culture has become a staple for today’s youth, affecting their conceptualization of civic participation. They use Web 2.0 tools (i.e. blogs, podcasts, wikis, social media) to: circulate information (blogs and podcasts) collaborate with peers (wikis) produce and exchange media and connect with people around the world via social media and online communities. [13] The pervasiveness of participatory digital tools has led to a shift in the way adolescents today perceive civic action and participation. Whereas 20th century civic education embraced the belief of “dutiful citizenship” and civic engagement as a “matter of duty or obligation” 21st century civic education has shifted to reflect youths' “personally expressive politics” and “peer-to-peer relationships” that promote civic engagement. [12]

This shift in students' perceptions has led to classroom civic education experiences that reflect the digital world in which 21st century youth now live, in order to make the content both relevant and meaningful. Civics education classrooms in the 21st century now seek to provide genuine opportunities to actively engage in the consumption, circulation, discussion, and production of civic and political content via Web 2.0 technologies such as blogging, wikis, and social media. [14] Although these tools offer new ways for engagement, interaction, and dialogue, educators have also recognized the need to teach youth how to interact both respectfully and productively with their peers and members of online communities. As a result, many school districts have also begun adopting Media Literacy Frameworks for Engaged Citizenship as a pedagogical approach to prepare students for active participatory citizenship in today’s digital age. This model includes critical analysis of digital media as well as a deep understanding of media literacy as a “collaborative and participatory movement that aims to empower individuals to have a voice and to use it.” [15] [16]


The Walking Dead: World Beyond Civic Republic and Three Rings Explained

The Walking Dead: World Beyond explains the franchise’s Three Rings symbol with the introduction of three new colonies.

Photo: AMC

The following contains spoilers for The Walking Dead: World Beyond episode 1.

Way back in the tenth episode of Hodajući mrtvaci’s sixth season, Paul Rovia a.k.a. Jesus (Tom Payne) made a promise to Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln).

“You’re world’s about to get a whole lot bigger,” the Messianic-appearing figure said. And it did not take long for Jesus’s promise to bear fruit. Rick Grimes’s world did get bigger with the introduction of the Hilltop Colony, The Kingdom, Oceanside, and even The Sanctuary.

Since that moment, the world of Hodajući mrtvaci has only continued to grow. That growth reaches its apex (thus far at least) in the premiere of the third TWD spinoff, The Walking Dead: World Beyond. This latest installment of the franchise introduces viewers to not just one new location but three…and maybe more than that. And unlike Hilltop, Alexandria, The Kingdom, The Sanctuary, or even Stephanie’s supposed community in West Virginia, these communities aren’t confined to merely the mid-Atlantic. These communities, the Civic Republic, Pacific Republic, and Campus Colony, span the entire country.

Ad – content continues below

Here is what we know about Hodajući mrtvaci’s latest expansion based on World Beyond’s first episode, “Brave.”

Dok World Beyond introduces three new communities, viewers spend time in only one. The series begins on the outskirts of Omaha, Nebraska in the Campus Colony of Omaha. This is where all main characters Hope (Alexa Mansour), Iris (Aliyah Royale), Elton (Nicolas Cantu), and Silas (Hal Cumpston) reside. There appear to be at least two components of the Omaha settlement. Many children and their respective caretakers and educators reside in the Campus Colony portion. There is also clearly an urban portion of the community in Omaha proper. It’s mentioned that the Campus Colony is “100 miles” from the city. The Campus Colony contains 9,671 people according to Iris’s therapist.

This suggests that things have settled down enough in Hodajući mrtvaci universe that individuals are able to band together to create quasi-super cities or at least a series of small communities over a relatively large area that are united enough to consider themselves one city. It would kind of be like if Alexandria, Hilltop, Kingdom, Sanctuary, and Oceanside all existed under one “Washington’ banner.

But the world gets even bigger than that on World Beyond. The first episode’s plot deals with some very special guests coming to town. The Campus Colony of Omaha is one of three political entities bound in what is known as “The Alliance of the Three.” The other two are the Pacific Republic based out of Portland, Oregon and the Civic Republic based out of…well nobody knows where, as they won’t tell anyone. The Alliance of the Three is represented by a logo featuring three interlocking rings, which viewers have seen previously on Hodajući mrtvacii Boj se živih mrtvaca.

Of the three, the Civic Republic (sometimes abbreviated as CRM for “Civic Republic Military”) are clearly the dominant faction. Despite not knowing where the Civic Republic is located, we still learn quite a bit about them in this first hour. The Civic Republic is a highly technologically sophisticated society. They have access to helicopters, proper body armor, and efficient zombie-killing automatic weapons. Though they’re careful not to reveal where they’re from, they do mention that it was a long trip out to Omaha. They also have at least one facility in New York state if Lt. Colonel Elizabeth Kublek (Julia Ormond) is to be believed. A lot of further information about the Civic Republic that can be gleaned from the previous two Walking Deadniz.


Sadržaj

Republicanism in the United States grew out of some very old ideas. It includes ideas from ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Renaissance, and England. [4]

Some of the most important ideas of republicanism are that: [5]

    and "unalienable" rights (natural rights) are some of the most important things in a society
  • Government should exist to protect these rights
  • The people who live in a country, as a whole, should be sovereign (they should be able to choose who leads them and have a say in how their government is run)
  • Power must always be given by the people, never inherited (like in a monarchy)
  • People must all play a role in their government by doing things like voting
  • Political corruption is terrible and has no place in a republic

Republicanism is different than other forms of democracy. In a "pure" democracy, the majority rules. If a majority of the people voted to take rights away from a certain group, that is what would happen. [6] [7] Alexis de Tocqueville, a famous French political thinker, called this the "tyranny of the majority." [8] He meant that a pure democracy could still turn into an unfair, unequal, corrupt society if the majority of the people decided to take away others' rights. [8]

However, republicanism says that people have "unalienable" rights that cannot be voted away. Republican governments are different than "pure" democracies, because they include protections to make sure people's rights are not taken away. In a true republican government, one group - even if it is a majority - cannot take another group's unalienable rights away. [9]

American republicanism was created and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. For them, "republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of aristocracy." [10] Republicanism shaped what the Founders thought and did during the American Revolution, and after.

Creating American republicanism Edit

The leaders of colonial America in the 1760s and 1770s read history carefully. Their goal was to compare governments and how well different types of governments worked. [11] They were especially interested in the history of liberty in England. They modeled American republicanism partly after the English "Country Party." This was a political party which opposed the Court Party, which held power in England. [11]

The Country Party was based on ancient Greek and Roman republicanism. [12] The Party criticized the corruption in the "Court" Party, which focused mostly on the King's court in London. It did not focus on the needs of regular people in England, or on areas outside of the capital city. [13]

By reading history, The Founders came up with a set of political ideas that they called "republicanism." By 1775, these ideas were common in colonial America. [14] One historian writes: "Republicanism was the distinctive political [way of thinking] of the entire Revolutionary generation." [15]

Another historian explains that believers of American republicanism saw government as a threat. He writes that colonists felt constantly "threatened by corruption." Government, to them, was "the [biggest] source of corruption and operat[ed] through such means as patronage, faction, standing armies ( [instead of] the ideal of the militia) [and] established churches" which people would have to belong to. [16]

Cause of Revolution Edit

By the 1770s, most Americans were dedicated to republican values and to their property rights. This helped cause the American Revolution. More and more, Americans saw Britain as corrupt hostile and a threat to republicanism, freedom, and property rights. [17] Many people thought that the greatest threat to liberty was corruption – not just in London, but at home too. They thought corruption went along with inherited aristocracy, which they hated. [17]

During the Revolution, many Christians connected republicanism with their religion. When the Revolution started, there was a major change in thinking that "convinced Americans . that God was raising up America for some special purpose," according to one historian. [18] This made the Revolutionists believe that they had a moral and religious duty to get rid of the corruption in the monarchy. [17]

Another historian, Gordon Wood, writes that republicanism led to American Exceptionalism: "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy." [19]

U njegovom Discourse of 1759, Revolutionist Jonathan Mayhew argued that people should only obey their governments if they "actually perform the duty of rulers by exercising a reasonable and [fair] authority for the good of human society." Many American colonists were convinced that British rulers were not using their power "for the good of human society." This made them want to form a new government which would be based on republicanism. They thought a republican government would protect – not threaten – freedom and democracy. [17]

Founding Fathers Edit

For example, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that a government that had the most possible participation by "its citizens in mass" (all the people together) was the safest kind. He said a republic is:

. a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority. [T]he powers of the government, being divided, should [each] be exercised . by representatives chosen. for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. [T]he mass of the citizens is the safest [protector] of their own rights. [20]

The Founding Fathers often talked about what "republicanism" meant. In 1787, John Adams defined it as "a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws." [21]

Other ideas Edit

Some other ideas also affected the Founding Fathers. For example, in the 1600s, John Locke, an English philosopher, had created the idea of the "social contract." [22] This idea said that people agree to obey governments, and in return, those governments agree to protect the people and their rights. This is like a contract made between the people and the government. If the government breaks this contract, and does not protect the people's rights, then the people have the right to overthrow their leaders. [22] This idea was important to the Revolutionists.

When they were writing state and national constitutions, the Americans used ideas from Montesquieu, an 18th-century French political thinker. Montesquieu wrote about how the perfect British constitution would be "balanced." [23] The idea of a balance of power (also called "checks and balances") is a very important part of the Constitution. It is one of the strategies the Founders used to make sure their government would be republican and protect the people from government corruption. [23]

The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism because its ideas guaranteed liberty, with limited powers checking and balancing each other. However, they also wanted change to happen slowly. They worried that in a democracy, the majority of voters could vote away rights and freedoms. [6] [24] They were most worried about poor Americans (who made up most of the United States) turning against the rich. [25] They worried that democracy could turn into "mob rule." [26]

To guard against this, the Founders wrote many protections into the Constitution. For example: [27]

  • They made sure the Constitution can only be changed by a "supermajority": two-thirds of the United States Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures[a]
  • They set up a court system that could help protect people's rights if the majority of Americans decided to take a group's rights away
  • They created an Electoral College, where a small number of elite people would select the President
    • Soon, political parties controlled elections more than the Electoral College did

    Most adult white males were able to vote. In 1776, most states required people to own property to be able to vote. However, at that time, America was 90% rural, and most people owned farms. As cities grew bigger and people started doing work in the cities, most states dropped the property requirement. By 1850, this requirement was gone in every state. [28]

    Republican motherhood Edit

    Under the new government after the Revolution, "republican motherhood" became an ideal. Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren were held up as the perfect "republican mothers." This idea said that a republican mother's first duty was to teach her children republican values. Her second job was to live simply and avoid luxury, which the Founders linked with corruption. [29] [30]

    Democracy Edit

    Many of the Founders did not think "democracy" was a good idea. Their idea of "democracy" was the "pure democracy" that de Tocqueville had described. [8] They worried often about the problem of 'tyranny of the majority' that de Tocqueville had warned about. They wrote many protections into the Constitution to prevent this from happening. As historians Richard Ellis and Michael Nelson write: "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to [make sure] that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be [destroyed] by majorities." [31] Thomas Jefferson warned that "an elect[ed] despotism is not the government we fought for." [32]

    James Madison, in particular, worried about this, and wrote about it in Federalistički radovi. The Federalist Papers talk about democracy as being dangerous, because it allows a majority to take away the rights of a smaller group. [33] However, Madison thought that as more people came to the United States, the country would get more diverse, and it would be harder to form a majority big enough to do this. [34] In Federalist No. 10, Madison also argued that a strong federal government would help protect republicanism. [35] The United States' first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave most power to the states and had a very weak federal government that could not get anything done. In Federalist No. 10, Madison argued that a small but powerful group might be able to take control of a small area, like a state. However, it would be much harder to take over an entire country. The bigger the country, he argued, the safer republicanism would be. [35]

    As late as 1800, the word "democrat" still had a very bad meaning to most Americans. It was mostly used to attack an opponent of the Federalist party. In 1798, George Washington complained that a "Democrat . will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country." [36] This changed over the next few decades.

    Property rights Edit

    United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779–1845) made the protection of property rights by the courts a major part of American republicanism. James Madison appointed Story to the Court in 1811. Story and Chief Justice John Marshall made the Court a protector of the rights of property against runaway democracy. [37] Story believed that "the right of the citizens to the free enjoyment of their property" (if they got it legally) was "a great and fundamental principle of a republican government." [38] Historians agree that Story—as much or more than Marshall or anyone else—reshaped American law in a conservative direction that protected property rights. [39]

    Military service Edit

    Republicanism saw military service as one of a citizen's most important duties. [40] John Randolph, a Congressman from Virginia, once said: "When citizen and soldier shall be synonymous terms, then you will be safe." [41]

    However, at this time, the word "army" meant "foreign mercenaries." After the Revolutionary War, Americans did not trust mercenaries. [42] Instead, they came up with the idea of a national army, made of citizens. They changed their definition of military service from a choice of careers to a civic duty – something every good republican should do. [42] Before the Civil War, people saw military service as an important show of patriotism, and a necessary part of citizenship. To soldiers, military service was something they chose to do, something they had a say in, and it showed that they were good citizens. [43]

    Republic Edit

    Uvjet republic is not used in the Declaration of Independence. [44] However, it does appear in Article Four of the Constitution, which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." [45]

    The United States Supreme Court has created a basic definition of what a "republic" is. U United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic. [46] Later, the Court's decision from In re Duncan (1891) ruled that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also part of the definition of a republic. [47]

    Democracy Edit

    Over time, most Americans changed their opinion about the word "democracy." By the 1830s, most Americans saw democracy as a great thing, and members of the new Democratic Party proudly called themselves "Democrats." [48] [49]

    After 1800, the limitations on democracy (like rules that limited who could vote) were removed one by one:


    What is an example of a Republicanism?

    A ne-example of republicanism is care for the elderly and the poor. U Republicanism, citizens are expected to be independent in their performance of their duties and responsibilities of being a citizen of the republic.

    what is the Republican principle? It stresses liberty and unalienable individual rights as central values, making people sovereign as a whole rejects monarchy, aristocracy and hereditary political power, rejects direct democracy, expects citizens to be virtuous and faithful in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.

    People also ask, what is Republicanism in the Constitution?

    Republicanism in the United States is a set of ideas that guides the government and politics. A republic is a type of government (one where the people can choose their leaders). Republicanism is an ideology &ndash set of beliefs that people in a republic have about what is most important to them.

    What does classical republicanism mean?

    Classical republicanism, also known as civic republikanstvo or civic humanism, is a form of republikanstvo developed in the Renaissance inspired by the governmental forms and writings of classical antiquity, especially such classical writers as Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero.


    Joe Biden, Donald Trump and the Weimar Republic: History's dark lessons

    By Matthew Rozsa
    Published June 6, 2021 6:00AM (EDT)

    Joe Biden, Kyrsten Sinema, Mitch McConnell, the QAnon Shaman and Adolf Hitler (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

    Dionice

    If Donald Trump's movement is destined to be America's answer to Nazism, than the Joe Biden administration is currently a rough equivalent of the Weimar Republic — the unstable constitutional democracy that governed Germany before the rise of Adolf Hitler. The comparison is imperfect, but the cautionary tale is still clear. There is an obvious risk that Biden and the narrow Democratic majorities in Congress will fail, and that Trump or a successor will take over and then cement themselves into power for at least the next generation. Every American who wants to avoid this — especially Biden and the leading Democrats in Congress — needs to learn the right lessons from Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.

    It would require a medium-length academic article to lay out all the similar and dissimilar qualities of these two nations in these two periods. But for the purposes of understanding the threat posed by Trumpism, there are five key similarities:

    1. Both sagas began with an incompetent right-wing ruler. In Germany's case, they had the misfortune of being led by Kaiser Wilhelm II, who has been described as viewing "other people in instrumental terms," as a "compulsive liar" and possessing "a limited understanding of cause and effect." That sounds more than a little bit like Donald Trump, whose administration was plagued with scandal and who failed to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic. On both occasions, that ruler was eventually removed from power (through losing both World War I and the German Revolution in the case of the former and losing the 2020 election in the case of the latter).

    2. Both stories continued because of a Big Lie. Hitler appealed to nationalist sentiments by claiming that Germany had actually won World War I but been betrayed behind the scenes by a conspiracy of socialists and Jews. Trump, who displays narcissistic traits and has spent years telling people that any election he loses is by definition stolen from him, has without evidence or any logical argument insisted that Biden cheated in 2020. Another defeated president might have been dismissed as a pathological sore loser, but Trump's cult of personality is so strong that his Trumper tantrum has now become a defining part of Republicanism.

    3. Both used their Big Lies to break democratic norms. In Hitler's case, he became a de facto legal dictator shortly after rising to power. Because America has a much longer history of unbroken democratic government than Germany did in 1933, things will be trickier for the Trumpists. In Trump's case, he became the first president to lose an election and refuse to accept the result (there have been 10 previous defeated presidents, and all accepted the voters' verdict), as well as the first to incite an insurrection to stay in power. Trump is now reportedly fueling conspiracy theories that he could still overturn the election just as significantly, Republicans are using his Big Lie to restrict voting for Democratic-leaning groups throughout the country. Through these methods, they will make it possible for Republicans to steal future elections — presidential and local — through means created to "fix" the problem they manufactured through their Big Lie. No doubt there will be many future Big Lies.

    4. Both Hitler and Trump use fascist tactics to win over their supporters. These include appeals to nationalism, vilification of "out" groups and conditioning their followers to use self-expression as a substitute for authentic political self-agency. (It helps when they can create a cult of personality around the leader figure.)

    5. Both may wind up using their legal troubles to create resurrection narratives. Hitler famously served nine months in prison for participating in a failed coup d'état known as the Beer Hall Putsch. Trump may go to prison for anything and everything from his own coup attempt to the numerous financial crimes alleged against him. If he's convicted, he will likely be held up as a martyr if he doesn't, that fact will be cited as vindication.

    Because of these similarities, it is unfortunately conceivable that Trump will complete his takeover of the Republican Party (generously assuming he has not already done so) and the Trumpists will win every future election because of their various voter suppression laws and Orwellian propaganda. We face a future in which Trump's brand of right-wing politics is not only empowered, but virtually impossible to dislodge. My guess is the process will start gaining steam soon, win some important victories in the 2022 midterm elections and then climax when either Trump or a Trumpist is elected in 2024.

    How can Biden make sure this does not happen?

    He must recognize the gravity of the crisis and prioritize neutralizing it. That means making sure Republicans can't cover up the truth about Trumpism's anti-democratic agenda, and that voting rights are protected.

    None of that will be possible as long as Republicans in the Senate can filibuster legislation to death. Even though Democrats have a theoretical majority in a 50-50 Senate because of Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote, two Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have infamously refused to support ending the filibuster. Their rationale is that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who notoriously gave part of Czechoslovakia to Germany and thereby emboldened Hitler: Like Chamberlain, they want to appease the far right extremists in their midst. Today this means legislation that would protect voting rights, investigate the Trumpist coup effort and help America's economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic is being unnecessarily thwarted or watered down by Republicans bent on reclaiming power.

    While Biden has expressed frustration with Manchin and Sinema, that is nowhere near enough. Biden and other leading Democrats need to make it clear that if Manchin and Sinema do not support ending the filibuster, they will suffer serious political consequences. The Trumpists understood this principle when they stripped Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming of her position in the House Republican leadership because she wouldn't back the Big Lie. In their quest to Make America Forever Trumpist, they will tolerate no dissent. When it comes to what Democrats must do to stop Manchin and Sinema, however, the goal is not to suppress dissent but to make sure that those who čini suppress dissent can't rise to power. If Manchin and Sinema refuse to do something reasonable to stop them, the Democratic Party must make them suffer politically for it. To quote John F. Kennedy's final speech (which he never got to deliver because he was assassinated: "This is a time for courage and a time of challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed."

    Consider this nightmare scenario: Sinema and Manchin switch parties and Democrats lose control of the Senate. As bad as that might be, it would also force Republicans to shoulder some of the blame for political gridlock, and might be preferable to Democrats being seen as impotent because two bad senators are blocking their entire agenda. If Biden can't get Manchin and Sinema to stop supporting the filibuster and back his agenda, then they deserve to be effectively treated as Republicans even if they remain nominal Democrats. Biden can still creatively use executive power to at least somewhat follow this next step. (I elaborate on that here.)

    That step is to make sure that he adequately addresses the people's legitimate needs. The Weimar Republic fell, in part, because of widespread economic hardships that the government simply could not fix. Biden needs to make sure that the vast majority of Americans feel economically secure, safe from threats foreign and domestic (like terrorists and pandemics), and protected from long-term existential crises like global warming, plastic pollution and income inequality. Any legislation passed anywhere in the nation that limits citizens' access to voting must be stricken from the books. Lies spread in bad faith to discourage voting, from Trump claiming he won in 2020 to myths about mail-in ballots, have to be proactively rebutted.

    It is unrealistic to expect Biden to be a revolutionary even if Manchin and Sinema do stop playing God, but he is capable of doing a lot entirely on his own. Whenever possible, he must be bold.

    Finally, Biden must make sure that we never forget Jan. 6. Just as George W. Bush's presidency was defined by his response to the 9/11 terrorist attack, so too will Joe Biden's be defined by whether he can make 1/6 into a cornerstone of our political consciousness. If he can do that, he will be able to make sure that Trumpism's anti-democratic philosophy — which poses a far more dangerous threat to America than Islamist terrorism — is known by all but its followers for what it is.

    This won't be easy, but we don't have a choice. A century ago one of the world's great powers collapsed into authoritarian evil with astonishing rapidity: While monarchists and major capitalists believed Adolf Hitler was a clown they could control, the opponents were divided, confused and ineffective. Aspects of that history are repeating themselves, and the question now is whether we have learned from the mistakes of the past to alter the outcome.

    Matthew Rozsa

    Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.


    Gledaj video: Šta zapravo znamo o autizmu? Marija Svilar. TEDxNoviSad