Jd0g33 said:I'm just curious, and can't find an answer to my specific question. If the majority of people can vote on representatives, and the majority of representatives can vote on AMENDMENTS to the constitution/bill of rights, then how is America still considered a republic when at some point the majority can vote on the unalienable rights given to the individual?
A democracy is a form of government where the power is held by the majority of the people, often through elected representatives. A republic, on the other hand, is a form of government where the power is held by elected representatives and leaders who are responsible to the citizens of the country.
Unalienable rights are rights that are considered to be inherent to all human beings and cannot be taken away or given up. These rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are often seen as a cornerstone of democracy and republicanism, as they ensure that all citizens have equal protection and opportunity under the law.
No, democracy and republicanism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, many democratic countries, including the United States, operate as republics. This means that while the people hold the power through elected representatives, the government still operates under a set of laws and principles that protect the rights of the citizens.
Unalienable rights play a crucial role in the US political system as they are seen as the foundation of a just and fair government. These rights are enshrined in the US Constitution and are protected by the government through checks and balances. They also serve as a guide for citizens to hold their government accountable and ensure that their rights are not violated.
No, the concept of unalienable rights is not unique to the US. It has roots in ancient philosophy and has been adopted by many countries around the world. However, the US is one of the first countries to explicitly list these rights in its founding documents, making them a central part of its political system and identity.