Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’.
(I've removed the italics… the earlier version can be read here.)

Come Monday the Senate will consider S.J. Res. 19. a proposed Constitutional Amendment authored by Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders (a long-in-the-tooth Democrat and the only Socialist Party senator — from New Hampshire, of course! ) that —

well, it's quite short -if you ignore the strike-out of last year's version!- and I'll give it to you in its entirety:

Quote

‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.’’.
(I've removed the italics… the earlier version can be read here.)

So: The incumbent Congress and the incumbent State legislators should decide who should be allowed to say what; when and where…
The epitome of democracy! The "powers that be" insist that they persist…un-opposed!

Well this thread could be a touch of satire or perhaps a wish for democracy in the land of the money barons control. However there are decent people over there and I do hope that one day they will see a democratic future. Eisenhower was still right.......

Repeat after me - New Hampshire is not Vermont.

... which does not in any way follow from the quoted text. Surprise 

Section 3. is actually my favorite: It obviates the first two… Or is a nullity itself.

Oh, I don't hate democracy — I simply reject it, as a viable form of enduring government… A people accustomed to the liberties described in the U.S. Constitution (many of which were considered ancient rights of Englishmen long before our nation's founding…) cannot both keep them and accept majority rule as the ideal.

A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

A Constitutional Republic is the current form of government in the United States. However in recent years, many people have criticized the federal government for moving away from a Constitutional Republic, as defined by the Constitution, and towards a pure democracy........Continued Here

.....Amid all the rhetoric about democracy and freedom, one thing remains firmly outside the fragile collective memory of the U.S.

I’m talking about the oft-ignored origins of the political system of the U.S. The “founding fathers” actually never conceived of democracy as the main or ultimate goal of their constitution. The independence sentiment was couched in freedom, but this was freedom from the British Crown and their policies. What their criterion allowed was actually distinguishing between democracy and republicanism, cleaving mainly to the latter.

The topic under discussion before and beyond the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was the intensity with which the people would intervene in the affairs of government. After obtaining her freedom from the British Empire, these men felt they should be protected from a greater problem, in its nature, to the previous one: the people. They would need to preserve this precious virtue — freedom — against the whims and “licentious wishes” of its people themselves.

Many signatories of the Declaration of Independence and other architects of the recent nation were vehement opponents of democracy. One of them was John Adams, who in his laborious contribution warned that democratic systems of government had historically always ended in tyranny and chaos.

The defect in the democratic system occurs when we confuse the procedure of democracy (effective to select our rulers), with the idea of democracy as a system of government. The Founders conceived the democratic system as merely a procedure to give themselves a Republic, which ensured their most precious value, freedom from the British and ability to seek their happiness..........Continued Here

The two of you have skirted this issue for years without being able to answer what you put into a "republic", so it is good you finally got a thread. To begin with: Are there any current country in the world which is a democracy but not a "republic" by your definition? Is there any republic that is not a democracy?

If you wish, I'd appreciate, & I think everyone else reading this will too, if you would post your findings here for everyone to see, thanks.

   
• How to get what you want

   
• How to keep what you have

   
• How to discern what you need

   
• And how to mediate between these…

....The focus on procedure is  important!

If answering partially, please say which parts are unrepublican.
If answering no, please say what exactly would exclude that country from being a republic.

The proposed amendment less to do with Democracy and more to do with special interest groups all but buying elections. With decisions such as Citizens United, the collision course with crypto-fascism in Mussolini the sense (a collusion of state and corporate power) is accelerating. Funny fearing loss of representative government to the oh-so-terrible Democracy, while blasting efforts to preserve it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Congress must submit a new Proposed Amendment to the Constitution, rewriting the First Amendment regarding Establishment of Religion, stating it has the authority to establish a State Religion upon the outcome of a National Referendum.

The Senate & The House must then both pass that proposed amendment by a 2/3 vote (Super Majority Vote).

If passed in Congress, the proposed amendment is submitted to all 50 States, whereas 3/4 of the States must pass the proposed amendment & return it to Congress to become part of the Constitution & thereby become law.

I hope that simple example clarifies the process of    DEMOCRACY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

democracy but not a "republic" , and republic that is not a democracy?