共和和民主的区别有哪些？

共和和民主的区别有哪些？

民主更侧重体现多数人的意志，而共和更侧重不同人群和力量的平衡。我们更熟悉的民主理论一般认为，一个国家的人民在法律上是平等的，通过民主制度可以产生多数人民的意志，而这种多数人的意志转化为人民的共同意志，进而转化为这个国家的意志。但是共和制在历史上则被描述为一个国家不同阶层之间的巧妙结合，比如在罗马平衡贵族与平民，在英国平衡国王、贵族与平民。即使现在不再存在国王、贵族这样的特权阶级，共和制的传统相对倾向于认为共同意志产生于不同人群之间更复杂的互动，比如在美国强调联邦和州的平衡，而不是单纯靠人数决定共同意志。

共和制更愿意承认精英的重要性。在决定国家政策时，共和制更能够接受少数精英基于其经验和智慧推翻大多数人的意志，而民主制要解释为什么各别精英可以对抗大多数人就要麻烦一些。举个例子，在美国平权运动的年代，美国最高法院的行动常常领先于立法系统，特别是南方各州的立法系统，所以南方各州当时广泛存在这样的疑问：为什么远在首都的九个老人可以推翻本州大多数人通过立法机关确立的法律？对于这个问题，一种解释当然是民主制度不是单纯的多数决，司法系统也是美国民主制度的重要组成部分；另一种解释则是民主并不是美国政治的唯一原则，司法系统本身就是共和制度下约束多数人暴政的工具。

共和制更强调公民的政治参与。在现代民主制度中，如果一个人在每次选举的时候，认真负责的去投票点投票，大概可以算得上是合格公民了。但是按照共和制的要求，光做到这一点是远远不够的。共和制最重要的要求就是公民积极的参加政治生活，关心政治体的存亡和发展，具体而言包括接受政治教育，担任陪审员，民兵，甚至是担任公职和参与立法。这意味着公民应该花费更多的时间学习政治、思考政治、与他人讨论政治并且参与政治。所以正面描述上面第2点的话，并不是说共和制主张精英统治公民，而是每一个公民应当成为精英参与统治。但是这里需要再补充的一点是，共和制要求公民积极的参与政治生活本身隐含了一个很苛刻的条件，即公民不必为了谋生而终日奔波。因此，就我个人观点，共和制这一概念逐渐衰落，和19世纪之后各国开放普选权允许穷苦大众拥有政治权利是有联系的。

此外，传统上，共和制和公民的道德是有直接关系的，通过上面提到的政治参与，良好的政治制度可以塑造和培养公民的美德，而公民以其美德使共和国得到更好的发展。而国家发展和个人道德之间的关系在现代政治社会中是不相关

民主是决策制度，而共和是政治体系

读《美国宪法原理》、《美国制宪会议记录》有感

一、美国国父们严格区分“民主”与“共和”

在今天的人看来，“民主”与“共和”的意思都差不多的，但是在费城制宪会议期间，代表们却非常在意两者之间的不同，特别强调不能把两者混为一谈。在《美国宪法原理》中，制宪者们对这两个概念作了严格的区分

“民主”：是指人民能够参与治理国家

“共和”：共和的底线是国家禁止贵族头衔，禁止权力的世袭继承方式　　

　　为何美国的国父们会如此强调“民主”与“共和”的区别呢？这是因为在当时，依照《邦联条约》建立起来的高度民主的邦联政体已经接近崩溃的边缘，各种动乱势力都打着“民主”旗号来发动骚乱，“民主”这个词已经被搞得声名狼籍，充满暴力色彩了。

二、“民主”在当时是个非常妖魔化的词汇

　　在费城制宪会议上，代表们总是把拟议中的美国政府称为“共和政府”或者“自由政府”，而不是今天美国人甚至全世界人通常所使用的“民主政府”。 翻阅乔治.华盛顿和约翰.亚当斯的总统就职演说，他们都提到“自由政府”、“共和政府模式”或者“自由的共和政体”，却从未提到“民主政府”或类似字样。这是为什么？制宪会议的一个背景就是——谢斯起义，起义者就打出了“民主”的旗号，在当时的上流社会里，“民主”已经成了粗暴蛮横、贪婪无耻、巧取豪夺的代名词了。所以制宪会议代表中有很多人对民主没有好感，对人民也不信任。制宪会议的骨干分子们更是大声挞伐民主的罪孽。

　　制宪会议主要的活跃分子之一汉密尔顿就指出，“当年抓住共和主义紧紧不放的人，如今也和大家一样，大声挞伐民主的罪孽；还强调“对群众的要求让步，就证明任期参议院还是不稳，这是因为对民主精神出奇的暴烈和蛮横估计不足”

　　谢尔曼代表说，“老百姓眼下对建立政府的事还插不上手。他们缺乏信息，老是被人误导”。

　　格里代表更是炮轰民主：“我们所经历过的罪过，都是源于民主过于泛滥。人民并不缺乏德行，但总是受到假装爱国的人蛊惑。马萨诸塞州的经历证明，一引动人精心炮制出各种虚假报告，到处传播，老百姓每天都被误导去做些最作孽的事，说些最作孽的话，这些虚假报告又无人可以当场揭穿。一个主要的罪过，是说要对政府雇员实施正当程序，仿佛把公仆都饿死才是民主的极致……”， 他还指责那里的人民是世界上最狂乱的人民，因为他们要求降低州长的薪水、要求废除参议院 。

　　就连最倾向民主的乔治.梅森代表也承认，“我们过去是太民主了。”

　　“美国宪法之父”，美国第四任总统麦迪逊代表指出，“政府若采取民主的形式，与生俱来的就是麻烦和不方便，人们之所以遣责民主，原因就在这里” 　　

　　当然他们最终并没有从一个极端走到另一个极端，没有彻底否定民主。他们仍然坚定地主张共和政体的根本目的就是使这个政权、使各种权力最终奠基于一切权威的合法源泉——人民之上。

　　不过呢，要想指望这样一群对民主非常反感的美国国父们能制订出一部保障人民参与治理国家，让广大人民在政府制订政策时能插上话和施加影响的新宪法，则是绝对不可能的了。

三、美国宪法：大胆创新，建立强有力的行政主导型的共和政体

１、削弱议会的权力，降低议会的政治地位

　　美国的国父们要建立的是共和政体，而共和政体的特点是“在共和政体中，立法权必然处于支配地位”，行政权和司法权则属于从属的地位。立法权是属于议会的，议会是国家机器中的民主机关，是一个国家里的与人民联系最紧密的机关，最能反映民意。

　　但前面讲过了，这帮美国国父们对民主是非常不感冒的，他们对议会的看法也是非常负面的，在《美国宪法原理》中，对议会就有这么一段很不好的评价：“在议会中，议员们有时似乎自以为就是人民的化身，面对来自任何其他方面最小程度的反对，就暴露出不耐和厌烦的病态；好象不论是行政或司法部门只要行使其权限就是侵犯了人民的利益。立法机构常常表现出企图横蛮控制其他部门的意图；而且，由于立法机构一般有人民站在他们一边，就总是在行动时势头过猛，致使其他政府部门难于维系宪法规定的平衡”

　　从这段评价就能看出这些国父们对议会有多么反感和排斥，所以他们是绝对不愿意建立一个议会主导型的政体。而是要建立一个行政主导型的政体。

　　要把通常是议会主导的共和政体改造成行政主导的共和政体，首先就是要削弱议会的权力。国父采取的第一个措施是，分割立法权，“在共和政体中，立法权必然处于支配地位。补救这个不便的方法是把立法机关分为不同单位，并且用不同的选举方式和不同的行动原则使它们在共同作用的性质以及对社会的共同依赖方面所容许的范围内彼此尽可能少发生联系”。 参议院相当于“政府中精选而稳定的组成部分”，以牵制更受大众控制和影响、意见多变的众议院。立法权一分为二，让他们互相牵制，便于行政首脑对他们分而治之，各个击破。

　　第二个措施是，实行“三权分立”。“三权分立”的引入，非常巧妙、非常彻底地从理论上否定了共和政体的基本原则——立法权至上、议会主权，也就是彻底地从理论上否定了民主机关在共和政体中的支配地位。

　　第三个措施是，赋予行政首脑“帝王般的权力”，使行政首脑的政治地位高于议会。制宪会议的代表大都非常熟悉英国宪法，在代表们的辩论中，直接提及英国制度多达111次，间接提及的有24处。迪金森代表在制宪会议上就反复重申他对英国宪政的热烈歌颂 ，认为“受到限制的君主制，是世界上最好的政府形态之一”，甚至说“任何共和制的政府形态，都永远不会得到与此同等的祝福”。

２、大大加强行政首脑的权力，使行政首脑处于政体的主导地位

　　美国总统的权力设置以乔治三世为原型，就权力的集中程度而言，美国国父们非常坦率地承认美国总统“与英国国王有类似之处，它也同样类似于上耳其皇帝、鞑靼可汗”。美国总统的权力包括“行政权”、“军权”、“联邦法官任命权”、“大赦权”、“立法复决权”。这样的权力设置，赋予总统有效压制议会内的反对势力的权力，使总统在美国政体中的地位比议会明显高出一截。

　　强而有力，高度集权，是国父们在总统的权力设置时始终遵循的原则。他们强调，“一切通情达理的人无不同意需要强有力的行政部门”；“使行政部门能够强而有力，所需要的因素是：

第一，统一；

第二，稳定；

第三，充分的法律支持；

第四，足够的权力”。“

以原则立场最坚定、态度最公允而著称的政治家和国务活动家，都曾宣布主张单一的行政首脑与庞大的立法机构并存。他们都已十分正确地表示赞成行政首脑最必要的条件是强而有力，而且都认为为此最宜集权力于一人；他们还都同样正确地指出，集权力于一人最有利于明智审慎，最足以取信于人民，最足以保障人民的权益”。

　　美国新宪法的反对派们最反感的就是总统权力太大，他们对新宪法的的反对意见几乎全部集中在总统的权力设置上。在随后的新宪法的全国性辩论中，总统权力设置成了双方攻防的全部焦点。反对派群情激愤，做出了非常激烈的反应，他们预言，总统集中太大的权力必然使美国的共和政体逐步解体并滑向专制独裁的帝制；但是美国的国父们意志非常坚定，针锋相对，寸步不让，他们强调，把大权集于总统再加上实行任期制，不仅不会导致专制独裁，反而能断绝一切野心家在美国建立专制独裁制度的念头。发展到最后，双方甚至搞到不顾斯文，相互破口大骂的地步，反对派大骂国父们妄想“冕旒加额”、“紫袍罩身”、“宠臣嬖姬”；国父们则痛骂反对派“拨弄妖术”、“毫无廉耻、男盗女娼”。

　　不过美国的国父们的思想确实是非常解放的，当时，反对派强烈批评总统权力太大，使美国的新政体已经带上明显的帝制色彩时，国父们也不毫忌讳，他们反击道：“我们却不妨承认，优良政体的真正检验标准应视其能否有助于治国安邦”

３、建立不受民意影响的具有非常浓厚贵族色彩的法院

　　宪法赋予法官以更大的独立性，以保证司法独立（之前美国的法官是由议会任命），也是美国政体贵族制的体现。作者们明确指出，“按照制宪会议草案规定，合众国任命的一切法官只要行为正当即应继续任职……以行为正当作为法官任职条件无疑是现代政府最可宝贵的革新。……同样，在共和政体下，也是限制代议机关越权及施加压力的最好保证。” 更为重要的是，“法院必须有宣布违反宪法明文规定的立法为无效之权” ，“对宪法以及立法机关制定的任何法律的解释权应属于法院”。

　　宪法还对法官的薪俸加以了肯定、明确的规定，使司法人员在财源上获得了必要的独立性。所有这些措施都极大地提高了司法权的地位。贵族精神以新的形式在美国宪法中延续下来了。终身任职的法官与传统贵族显然十分相似。　

四、美国宪法的一个重要特点：禁止人民参与治理国家

　　“古代政治制度与美国政府的真正区别，在于美国政府中完全排除作为集体身分存在的人民”，这是国父们在介绍美国新政体时所强调的。《美国宪法原理》中花了很大的篇幅来论述如何来确保总统的独立性，一个最重要的措施就是宪法只赋予人民间接选举总统（先选出选举团，再由选举团选出总统）的权力，没有罢免总统的权力。总统只有在严重违法并且被议会逮住了把柄，并且还要弄到连议会中本党的议员都众叛亲离之后，才有可能被议会赶下台。

　　每个时代的人都有自已的局限性，美国的国父们也不例外。他们非常明显地不信任人民，对待民意的态度也是非常轻蔑和讥讽式的。他们说得非常露骨，“有些人会以为行政部门对于民意或立法机构中之意见能够屈从顺应，乃是其最大的美德。但是，此种人对于所以要设置政府的宗旨，以及对于促进人民幸福的真正手段，都是理解得十分粗浅的。共和制度的原则，要求接受社会委托管理其事务的人，能够体察社会意志，并据以规范本人行为；但并不要求行政部门无条件顺应人民群众的一切突发激情或一时冲动。因为美国人民的情绪很可能是由那些极善于迎合美国人民一时的偏见，而实则是损害美国人民利益的野心家和蛊惑家的阴谋活动所煽动的。”

　　“人民普遍地是从自已的公益出发的。但这一点常亦用来说明人民也会犯错误的。美国人民从常识出发是会蔑视阿谀奉承的人的，而某些别有用心的人胡说美国人民在任何时候都是贤明的，绝对不会犯错误的。但美国人民从自己的经验知道自己有时候是会犯错误的；因为美国人民终日受那些别有用心的寄生虫和马屁精的欺骗，受到野心家、贪污犯、亡命徒的欺诈和坑害，受那些不值得信任的人的蒙蔽，受到巧取豪夺的人的耍弄。要说人民在经常受到这样一些干扰的情况下，也不会经常犯错误，勿宁说这是个彻头彻尾的神话。”

　　“当美国人民的意向同他们本身利益出现差异的情况下，受命维护人民利益者的职责应该是坚决抵制这种一时的误会，以便给予美国人民时间和机会去进行冷静认真的反省。这种作法能使美国人民免遭其本身错误所造成的严重后果，并使其有勇气和雅量为美国人民利益服务而不惜引致美国人民一时的不快，但他将得到美国人民长期感激和纪念。”

　　所以，人民在美国政治生活中的唯一权力就是，定期间接或直接选举出统治者，至于统治者如何治国，人民基本上是插不上话了，因为美国的国父们在设计美国的政治制度时，“政府中完全排除作为集体身分存在的人民”就是一个重要的目标。现在大家都知道，美国人自已有一句名言，美国总统候选人在选举期间许下的诺言都是靠不住的。

我们可以这么说，美国实行的是一套经过精心改进的，适合美国国情的，具有强烈美国特色的共和制度。

本文链接

共和和民主的区别有哪些？

英文链接

What is the difference between republic and democracy?
Democracy focuses more on reflecting the will of the majority, while republic focuses more on the balance of different groups of people and forces. The democratic theory that we are more familiar with generally believes that the people of a country are equal in law, and the will of the majority of the people can be generated through the democratic system, and this will of the majority is transformed into the common will of the people, and then transformed into the will of the country. will. But the republic is described in history as a clever combination of different classes in a country, such as the balance of nobles and commoners in Rome, and the balance of kings, nobles and commoners in England. Even though privileged classes such as kings and nobles no longer exist, the tradition of the republic tends to believe that the common will arises from more complex interactions between different groups of people. will.

Republics are more willing to acknowledge the importance of elites. When deciding on national policy, a republic is more able to accept that a few elites overthrow the will of the majority based on their experience and wisdom, while a democracy has more trouble explaining why individual elites can oppose the majority. For example, in the era of the affirmative action movement in the United States, the actions of the Supreme Court of the United States were often ahead of the legislative system, especially in the southern states. Therefore, there was a widespread question in the southern states at that time: Why can nine old people in the capital overturn A law established by a legislature passed by a majority in this state? For this problem, one explanation is of course that the democratic system is not simply a majority vote, and the judicial system is also an important part of the American democratic system; A tool for restraining the tyranny of the majority.

The republic places more emphasis on the political participation of citizens. In a modern democratic system, if a person goes to the polling place to vote conscientiously and responsibly during each election, he can probably be regarded as a qualified citizen. But according to the requirements of the republic, it is far from enough to do this alone. The most important requirement of a republic is that citizens actively participate in political life and care about the survival and development of the political body, specifically including receiving political education, serving as jurors, militiamen, and even holding public office and participating in legislation. This means that citizens should spend more time studying politics, thinking about politics, discussing politics with others, and participating in politics. Therefore, if you describe the above point 2 positively, it does not mean that the republic advocates that the elite rule the citizens, but that every citizen should become an elite and participate in the rule. But what needs to be added here is that the republic requires citizens to actively participate in political life itself implies a very harsh condition, that is, citizens do not have to run around all day long to make a living. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the gradual decline of the concept of republic is related to the opening of universal suffrage in various countries after the 19th century, allowing the poor to have political rights.

In addition, traditionally, the republic and the morality of citizens are directly related. Through the above-mentioned political participation, a good political system can shape and cultivate the virtues of citizens, and citizens use their virtues to make the republic develop better. while the relationship between national development and individual morality is irrelevant in modern political society

Democracy is a decision-making system while a republic is a political system
Thoughts on reading “Principles of the American Constitution” and “Records of the American Constitutional Convention”

1. The founding fathers of the United States strictly distinguished “democracy” and “republic”
   In the eyes of today’s people, “democracy” and “republic” have similar meanings, but during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the representatives were very concerned about the differences between the two, emphasizing that the two should not be confused. In Principles of the American Constitution, the framers drew a strict distinction between the two concepts

“Democracy”: Refers to the ability of the people to participate in the governance of the country

“Republic”: The bottom line of the republic is that the country prohibits the title of nobility and the hereditary inheritance of power.

Why did the founding fathers of the United States emphasize the difference between “democracy” and “republic” so much? This is because at that time, the highly democratic confederal regime established in accordance with the “Confederacy Treaty” was on the verge of collapse, and various turbulent forces launched riots under the banner of “democracy”, and the word “democracy” has become famous. Dirty and full of violence.

2. “Democracy” was a very demonized term at the time

At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the delegates always referred to the proposed U.S. government as a “republican government” or a “liberal government” instead of the “democratic government” commonly used by Americans and people around the world today. Look at the inaugural addresses of George Washington and John Adams, and they both refer to “free government,” “a republican form of government,” or a “liberal republic,” but never “democratic government” or anything like that. why is that? One of the backgrounds of the Constitutional Convention was the Shays uprising, and the rebels played the banner of “democracy”. In the upper class at that time, “democracy” had become synonymous with brutality, greed, shameless, and plundering. Therefore, many of the delegates to the Constituent Assembly do not have a good opinion of democracy and do not trust the people. The core elements of the Constituent Assembly even more loudly denounced the sins of democracy.

Hamilton, one of the main activists of the Constitutional Convention, pointed out that “those who cling to republicanism in those days are now like everyone else, loudly denouncing the sins of democracy; The Senate is still unstable because of an underestimation of the astonishing violence and outrageousness of the democratic spirit”

Representative Sherman said, “The common people are not yet able to get a hand in the establishment of the government. They lack information and are always misled.”

Representative Gerry even bombarded democracy: “The crimes we have experienced all stem from excessive democracy. The people are not lacking in virtue, but they are always bewitched by those who pretend to be patriotic. The experience of Massachusetts proves that when people are attracted All kinds of false reports have been carefully concocted and spread everywhere. The common people are misled every day to do the most evil things and say the most evil things. No one can expose these false reports on the spot. One of the main crimes is to say that the government Employees enforcing due process, as if starving public servants is the pinnacle of democracy…”, he also accused the people there of being the most deranged people in the world, because they demanded lower salaries for governors and the abolition of the Senate.

Even the most pro-democratic Representative George Mason admitted, “We were too democratic in the past.”

“Father of the U.S. Constitution” and representative of the fourth U.S. President Madison pointed out that “if the government adopts a democratic form, it is inherently troublesome and inconvenient. This is the reason why people condemn democracy.”

Of course, they did not go from one extreme to another in the end, and they did not completely deny democracy. They still firmly maintain that the fundamental purpose of the republic is to make this regime and all kinds of power ultimately based on the legitimate source of all authority—the people.

However, if you want to expect such a group of American founding fathers who are very disgusted with democracy to formulate a new constitution that guarantees the people’s participation in governing the country and allows the people to intervene and exert influence when the government formulates policies, it is absolutely impossible. possible.

3. The U.S. Constitution: Bold and innovative, establishing a strong executive-led republic
4. Weaken the power of the parliament and reduce the political status of the parliament

The founding fathers of the United States wanted to establish a republic, and the characteristic of a republic is that “in a republic, the legislative power must be in a dominant position”, while the executive and judicial powers are subordinate. Legislative power belongs to the parliament, and the parliament is a democratic organ in the state apparatus, the organ in a country that is most closely connected with the people, and can best reflect public opinion.

But as I said before, these founding fathers of the United States are very unimpressed with democracy, and their views on Congress are also very negative. In the “Principles of the American Constitution”, there is such a very bad comment on Congress: ” In Parliament, the members sometimes seem to think themselves the embodiment of the people, and show a morbid state of impatience and boredom in the face of the smallest opposition from any other quarter; the interests of the people. The legislature has often shown an intention of arbitrarily controlling the other branches; balance”

From this evaluation, it can be seen how disgusted and repulsive these founding fathers are to parliament, so they are absolutely unwilling to establish a parliament-led political system. Rather, it is to establish an executive-led regime.

In order to transform the usually parliament-led republic into an executive-led republic, the first step is to weaken the power of the parliament. The first measure taken by the founding father was to divide the legislative power, “In a republic, the legislative power must be in a dominant position. The way to remedy this inconvenience is to divide the legislature into different units, and use different methods of election and different actions. The principle is to bring them into contact with each other as little as the nature of their mutual action and mutual dependence on society will permit.” The Senate acts as a “selected and stable part of the government” in order to contain the more popular control and influence of the more changeable House of Representatives. The legislative power is divided into two, so that they can check each other, so that the executive head can divide and conquer them and break them individually.

The second measure is to implement “separation of powers”. The introduction of “separation of powers” very cleverly and thoroughly negates the basic principles of the republic in theory – the supremacy of the legislative power and the sovereignty of parliament, that is, it completely negates the domination of democratic organs in the republic in theory status.

The third measure is to endow the head of administration with “emperor-like powers” so that the political status of the head of administration is higher than that of the parliament. Most of the delegates to the Constituent Assembly were very familiar with the British Constitution. In their debates, there were as many as 111 direct references to the British system and 24 indirect references. Representative Dickinson repeatedly reiterated his enthusiastic praise of British constitutionalism at the Constitutional Convention, believing that “a limited monarchy is one of the best forms of government in the world”, and even said that “any form of republican government will always be There will be no equal blessing.”

2. Greatly strengthen the power of the executive head, so that the executive head is in the dominant position of the political system

The power of the American president was modeled after George III, and in terms of the concentration of power, the founding fathers of the United States admitted very frankly that the American president “has something in common with the king of England, and it is also like the emperor of Turkey, the king of Tartarism, and so on.” sweat”. The powers of the President of the United States include “executive power”, “military power”, “power to appoint federal judges”, “power of amnesty” and “power of legislative review”. Such a power setting gives the president the power to effectively suppress opposition forces in the parliament, making the president’s status in the American political system significantly higher than that of the parliament.

Strong, powerful, and highly centralized are the principles that the founding fathers always followed when setting up the power of the president. They stress that “all reasonable men agree on the need for a strong executive”; “the factors required to make an executive strong and powerful are:

First, unity;

Second, stability;

Third, sufficient legal support;

Fourth, enough power.”

The statesmen and statesmen, known for their most steadfast principled positions and most equitable attitudes, have declared that a single executive head should coexist with a large legislative body. They have all quite rightly expressed their opinion that the most necessary condition of the executive head is strength, and they have all thought that it is best to concentrate power in one person for this purpose; It is enough to win the trust of the people, and it is most enough to protect the rights and interests of the people.”

Opponents of the new U.S. Constitution are most disgusted by the fact that the president has too much power. Almost all of their objections to the new constitution focus on the power setting of the president. In the ensuing national debate on the new constitution, the presidential power set became the entire focus of both offense and defense. The opposition was outraged and reacted violently. They predicted that the excessive concentration of power by the president would inevitably lead to the gradual disintegration of the American republic and slide into an autocratic monarchy; No, they emphasized that the centralization of power in the president and the implementation of a term system will not only not lead to dictatorship, but will cut off all ambitious people’s ideas of establishing an autocratic system in the United States. In the end, the two sides even got to the point of swearing at each other regardless of politeness. The opposition yelled at the founding fathers for wanting to “enhance the crown”, “purple robes”, and “favorite concubine”; the founding fathers scolded the opposition “Fiddle with sorcery”, “Shameless, male robbers and female prostitutes”.

However, the founding fathers of the United States were indeed very emancipated. At that time, when the opposition strongly criticized the president for having too much power, which made the new American political system have an obvious imperial color, the founding fathers did not hold back. They countered: ” Let us admit, however, that the true test of a good regime is whether it contributes to state governance”

3. Establish courts with a very strong aristocratic color that are not affected by public opinion

The Constitution endows judges with greater independence to ensure the independence of the judiciary (previously, judges in the United States were appointed by Congress), which is also a manifestation of the aristocracy of the American political system. The authors expressly state that “all judges appointed by the United States shall continue to serve, so long as they conduct themselves properly, in accordance with the draft of the Constitutional Convention. . . . Under the political system, it is also the best guarantee to limit the power of the representative body and exert pressure.” More importantly, “the court must have the power to declare that legislation that violates the express provisions of the Constitution is invalid.” The right to interpret the law should belong to the courts.”

The Constitution also affirms and clearly stipulates the salaries of judges, enabling judicial personnel to obtain the necessary independence in terms of financial resources. All these measures greatly enhanced the status of the judiciary. The aristocracy survived in a new form in the United States Constitution. Life-tenured judges are clearly very similar to traditional aristocracy. the

4. An important feature of the U.S. Constitution: prohibiting the people from participating in the governance of the country

“The real difference between the ancient political system and the American government is that the American government completely excludes the people as a collective identity,” this is what the founding fathers emphasized when they introduced the new American political system. “Principles of the U.S. Constitution” spends a lot of space on how to ensure the independence of the president. One of the most important measures is that the constitution only empowers the people to elect the president indirectly (the electoral college is first elected, and then the electoral college elects the president) power, not the power to remove the president. Only after the president has broken the law seriously and is caught by the parliament, and even the members of his own party in the parliament defect, can he be removed from office by the parliament.

People in every era have their own limitations, and the founding fathers of the United States are no exception. They clearly distrust the people, and their attitude towards public opinion is also very contemptuous and sarcastic. They put it very bluntly, “There are those who think it the greatest virtue in the executive branch to submit to the will of the people or to the opinions of the legislature. The real means are all very shallowly understood. The principle of the republican system requires that those who are entrusted by the society to manage their affairs should be able to understand the will of the society and regulate their own behavior accordingly; All sudden passion or impulsiveness. Because the sentiment of the American people is likely to be instigated by the conspiracy activities of those careerists and demagogues who are very good at catering to the temporary prejudices of the American people, but in fact harming the interests of the American people.”

“The people generally start out from their own public welfare. But this is often used to show that the people can make mistakes. The American people will despise flatterers based on common sense, and some people with ulterior motives talk nonsense about the American people He is wise at all times and never makes mistakes. But the American people know from their own experience that they sometimes make mistakes; because the American people are constantly deceived by parasites and sycophants with ulterior motives, defrauded and ensnared by embezzlers, desperadoes, deceived by untrustworthy, tricked by plunderers. If the people are constantly disturbed by such disturbances, they will not often err. Saying it’s a complete myth.”

“When the intentions of the American people differ from their own interests, it is the duty of those entrusted to protect the interests of the people to resolutely resist this momentary misunderstanding in order to give the American people time and opportunity to reflect calmly and seriously. This approach He who can save the American people from the grave consequences of his own mistakes, and who has the courage and grace to serve the interests of the American people at the expense of momentary displeasure, will be grateful and remembered for a long time by the American people.”

Therefore, the only power of the people in American political life is to regularly elect the ruler indirectly or directly. , “the complete exclusion from government of the people as a collective identity” is an important goal. Now everyone knows that Americans have a famous saying that the promises made by the US presidential candidates during the election are not reliable.

We can say that the United States implements a carefully improved republican system that suits the national conditions of the United States and has strong American characteristics.