Constitutional Republic
A constitutional republic is a form of government in which a representative is elected by the people to govern over themaccording to the rules established in the law of the land. An example of a constitutional republic is the United States’ form of government. U.S. citizens elect a Presidentand other representativeswho then govern them as the Constitution directs them to. To explore this conceptconsider the following constitutional republic definition.
Definition of Constitutional Republic
Noun
- A form of government in which officials are elected by citizens to lead them as directed by their country’s constitution.
Origin
6th to 8th centuries B.C. Noted by Aristotle
What is a Constitutional Republic
A constitutional republic is a form of government in which the head of the stateas well as other officialsare elected by the country’s citizens to represent them. Those representatives must then follow the rules of that country’s constitution in governing their people. Like the U.S. governmenta constitutional republic may consist of three branches – executivejudicialand legislative – which divide the power of the government so that no one branch becomes too powerful.
A country is considered constitutional republic if:
- It has a constitution that limits the government’s power
- The citizens choose their own heads of state and other governmental officials
Of coursewhile this is how a constitutional republic is supposed to workin practiceit is not always run this way. Some republics are governed by constitutions that can be ignored by the head(s) of state.
The types of officials that Americans can directly elect include council membersstate representativesgovernorsand senators. Certain officialslike mayorsmay not be directly elected. For instancethe president is indirectly elected by the Electoral College. The president can then choose certain other officialssuch as Supreme Court justiceshowever the legislative branch must confirm whomsoever he nominates to that position.
Constitutional Republic vs. Democracy
Some believe that the United States is a democracybut it is actually the perfect example of a constitutional republic. A pure democracy would be a form of government in which the leaderswhile elected by the peopleare not constrained by a constitution as to its actions. In a republichoweverelected officials cannot take away or violate certain rights of the people. The Pledge of Allegiancewhich was written in 1892 and adopted by Congress in 1942 as the official pledgeeven makes reference to the fact that the U.S. is a republic:
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Americaand to the Republicfor which it standsone nation under Godindivisiblewith liberty and justice for all.” [emphasis added]
The Anti-Federalists and Federalistsas the new nation was being formedcould not agree on how involved the federal government should be in citizens’ lives; a decision on a pure democracy could never be reached. Alexander Hamiltonhimself a Federaliststated that the government being created was a “republican government,” and that true freedom would not be found in a dictatorship nor a true democracybut in a moderate government.
James Madisonanother Federaliststated thatwhile citizens would otherwise get together to discuss governmental operations in a democracya republic instead leaves the bigger decisions up to its elected representatives. Madison stated that a democracy needs to be “confined to a small spot,” while republics could be “extended over a large[r] region.” What he meant by thiswas that by not forming a democracycitizens could allow representatives to make decisions for them on bigger issuessuch as international relationsas opposed to having to find a way to all meet up and discuss these issues together.
Despite the fact that most countries claim that “democracy” is their main goalmost countries govern as republics. Howevernot all republics are the same; with somefor instanceoperating under a president (like the U.S.)and others operating under a parliament (the U.K.)in which the people elect a legislative branch that then decides the executive branch. Even some monarchies operate as republicsdespite having royalty as their heads of state.
The following table outlines some of the differences between a constitutional republic and a democracy:
| DEMOCRACY | REPUBLIC |
| Ruled by a majority that enjoys unlimited power. Minority groups have no protection. | Follows a written Constitution that protects the rights of the minority from being infringed upon by the majority. |
| Individuals can make their own decisions except in those situations that the majority has limited. | Generallyindividuals can make their own decisionsespecially in situations where the Constitution protects their “unalienable rights.” |
| While all citizens supposedly have a say in government and are to be treated as equalsthe majority often ends up tyrannically ruling the minority. | Generallyall citizens are supposed to have an equal say and be treated equallyespecially as protected under the Constitution. |
| The United States is commonly confused for a democracy. Howeverthe will of the people should notand does notchange the rules that limit the government’s power. | Article 4Section 4 defines the United States as a Republic. |
| Freedom of religion is permitted to the extent that the majority does not limit religious freedom for the minority. | Generallyreligious freedom is permittedespecially as protected under the Constitution. |
| Private property is permittedthough the majority may place limits on the property rights of the minority. | Generallyprivate property is permittedespecially as protected under the Constitution. |
Limits on Governmental Power
A constitutional republic is put in place to prevent the government from becoming a tyrannical ruler. The United States Constitution contains protections against what is referred to as “the tyranny of the majority” on the rights of American citizens. Examples of constitutional republic protections include:
- Congress cannot prohibit the expression of free speechnor the free exercise of one’s religionand it cannot infringe on a citizen’s right to possess a gun. (First and Second Amendments)
- The Senate must be elected by the Statesnot citizens. (Seventeenth Amendment)
- The President must be elected by the Electoral Collegenot citizens.
American citizens have argued in the past for the abolishment of the Electoral College. This argument comes up when a presidential candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electiondue to not receiving enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
The 2016 election was the perfect example of this situation. Donald Trump was elected to the presidency by the Electoral Collegedespite having lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. Those who believed that Donald Trump would become a tyrannical ruler if he were to ascend to the Oval Office fought for the Electoral College to be abolished once and for all. Several citizens created petitionscalling upon the government for this abolishmentand many others voiced their frustrations via protests.
Constitutional Republic Example in Obamacare
There are several examples of constitutional republic being under attack through lawsuits. These types of situations typically arise when the majority passes a law through their representativesyet other citizens claim the law is unconstitutional. Perhaps one of the most prominent examples of this in recent history is the challenging of the Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as “Obamacare”) at the Supreme Court level.
Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA)which went into effect in March2010. The purpose of the ACA was to provide health insurance to millions of Americans who were not covered. It also sought to limit the extent to which citizens could seek health care services for which they could not – or did not – pay.
Shortly after the ACA was passedseveral states and organizations – led by the state of Florida – brought lawsuits before the United States District Court in Floridaclaiming that the ACA was unconstitutional. Individuals Kaj Ahburg and Mary Brown also jumped on board as plaintiffs in the case.
The group’s claims were based on a number of groundsamong them was the claim that the requirement for employers to purchase health insurance for their employees interfered with state sovereigntyor the right of the state to remain independent and have control over its own decisions.
Another of these grounds – and Brown’s individual reason for bringing suit – echoed the complaints of several Americans who felt they were being punished financially by the ACA. Brown did not have health insuranceand was being forced to make necessary financial arrangements to ensure that she could comply with the Act’s requirements. Those who could not affordor simply refusedto comply were to be issued a tax penalty when they submitted their taxes. This individual mandate penalty essentially acted as a sort of punishment for not having health insurance.
Among the additional rulings that the District Court made on this caseit ultimately found the entire ACA to be invalid. This was duein partto the fact that the individual mandate that taxed citizens for not having insurance was not an appropriate usage of Congress’ powers of commerce or taxation. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court in some aspectsbut reversed the District Court on the individual mandate issue. The appeals court held that yesthe mandate could actually be considered separately without invalidating the other parts of the ACA.
When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Courtthe Court was split on the issue of the individual mandate penalty. Chief Justice Robertsalong with Justices GinsburgBreyerSotomayorand Kaganheld that the mandate was a legitimate exercise of Congressional power. They concluded that the penalty is not a normal tax to be collected by the IRSand that it is not so severe as to be considered forcible. Furtherthey ruled that the mandate was not limited to willful violationssuch as fines that are imposed upon citizens for breaking the law.
HoweverJustices ScaliaKennedyThomasand Alito disagreed. Their argument was thatbecause Congress referred to the payment as a “penalty,” then if it were to be considered another kind of taxthat would require a re-write of the Constitution’s Taxing and Spending Clause.
Related Legal Terms and Issues
- Tyranny – Brutal and oppressive governmental rule.
