Dude, now you're arguing their case. It's just because the original constitution did not
limit government that some of the colonies balked at ratification until they were given assurances that a bill or rights would be incorporated

(Shake of the head) Look at the notes of the thing; The arguments against the BOR at the time were that the constitution already provided for such, by means of the limits on it. Argue that this was insufficient as you will, the point I'm making is one of intent.

A LIMITED government. Again, look at the nature of the document, and what it actually says.

Hamilton and Madison spent more time arguing against limiting the federal government in their defense of the Constitution than they spent emphasizing the limits it did place.

The US Constitution, for it's time, was a huge expansion of federal power, the argument had to be made that it ought to be expanded and in certain areas unlimited.

When an American says 'Republic, not a democracy' all I hear is 'we have a president but our citizens don't have a say'. Though I agree that the US is not one of the most democratic countries, I would not qualify you as UNdemocratic. So I don't understand the statement, never understand what it is supposed to express, just have a vague feeling that it is connected with something conservatives like because they are usually the ones saying it.

Beyond that, the thing that frustrates me, and that inspired the posts, is that people use the phrase as an argument for bizarre things that confirms (to me) that they don't understand what they are saying. For example: ... Another time, when it was argued (here on OTB and at my place--I forget where the comment itself was) that special elections should be held to fill vacant Senate seats, someone argued that for the constitution to be so amended was problematic because we have a republic, not a democracy.

Wait a minute, that was me! Here is the comment:

The people of most states want their Governor to appoint the replacement. We live in a republic -- most of our decision-making is made by authorized representatives. Who better to know how the people of a given state want replacements picked than the people of that state?

My point was that you could select replacements for Senate either by vote of the people (direct democracy) or by decision of elected officials (representative democracy). My argument was not that only one option is available, but that one is arguably normative.

I see also that I made an implicit state's rights argument too, and subsequent commentors emphasized that point. I'm a Lincoln-phile, so my state's rights soil is quite thin. But I maintain a high threshold for Constitutional amendments.

Link

Government provides services I as an individual could not afford

In other words, you have no problem with benefiting personally from an unfair tax system, but when others derive a benefit you do not agree with, they are thieves. Got it.

Folks, there is no "Founders' consensus" on whether the federal government can levy income taxes. The Constitution essentially prohibits direct taxes, but the term was not defined or publicly understood at the Convention. A delegate asked what it meant, and nobody answered. My view is that each delegate had his own view on what it meant, but was afraid to utter it publicly less it not achieve consensus. They bit their lips to continue the argument for another day. The argument continued until 1895 when the SCOTUS decided it. That is, the courts decided, not the Founders.

OTOH, if they hadn't thought to create a limited government, they'd not have done the BOR, either, the whole of which is limits on government

Dude, now you're arguing their case. It's just because the original constitution did not
limit government that some of the colonies balked at ratification until they were given assurances that a bill or rights would be incorporated. Had the BOR been in the constitution from the getgo, you'd be right--it wasn't and therefore you're wrong.

Once again it would be difficult for you to be more wrong. Most of the document lays out the structure of the government.

And placing limits on it at each step, grew.

While it is certainly true that there are important elements of limited government in the US Constitution, Greg is correct here: it is hardly the main purpose of the document. If what the Founders had wanted was a severely limited central government, they would never have sought to replace the Articles of Confederation in the first place.

OTOH, if they hadn't thought to create a limited government, they'd not have done the BOR, either, the whole of which is limits on government.And yes, I hear ya, steve... If you'll but recall, the big argument amongst the founders at the time against the BOR was that the constitution itself already placed sufficient limits on governmental power, in it's very construction.

Further, many of the restrictions to governmental power (although not all) were added after ratification (the Bill of Rights). The fact that this was a post hoc action indicates that Bit's interpretation of the main purpose of the constitution is off base. The convention was concerned primarily with a document to produce a working government, and one that was more powerful than what the Articles gave them, not enshrining specific protections for the governed.

Almost the whole of the document addresses that one function; limiting the power of government.

Once again it would be difficult for you to be more wrong. Most of the document lays out the structure of the government.
The constitution does place limits on government, but to claim that is the bulk of the printed document is obviously false with even a cursory examination.

You speak of the Constitution like it's magic piece of paper...what it does, is constitute a government.

A LIMITED government. Again, look at the nature of the document, and what it actually says.

It's no accident for example, that you find the word "freedom" in it, exactly once, and it's a disintegrated shard expressed in an afterthought.

The word "liberty", meanwhile, appears three times, first as a rhetorical flourish, and then twice more as afterthoughts, both of them subordinating it to "due process".

But why? Because the document was not written to establish government as a protector and arbitor of those rights, rather, it seeks to protect rights by limiting government. Almost the whole of the document addresses that one function; limiting the power of government.

Lately I've seen "A republic, not a democracy" used to mean "A federal government, not a national government", often in the case where the speaker is arguing the supremacy of state's rights,

Yup, that was what sparked the discussion. However, as I have noted several times now, that isn't what the term "republic" means or ever meant. It isn't the way that Madison used it--that much is clear.

Further, since the base meaning of "republic" has to do with popular sovereignty, which makes a linkage to territorial rights (i.e., those of states) all the more problematic.

I suggest rather, that government isn't the protector of rights... that job is in the constitution... the vast majority of which is written in terms which do nothing but limit the power of government.

Bit,

You should take some time and brush up on your Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, for starters. One essential belief of classical liberalism is that individuals in the state of nature voluntarily give some of the unlimited freedom they have to the State, who is given, through the consent of the governed, the obligation to protect the natural rights of all citizens through coercion.

You speak of the Constitution like it's magic piece of paper...what it does, is constitute a government.

And if you think that the "vast majority" of the Constitution limits the power of government, you should read it again. The vast majority of its text talks about selecting the various officeholders specified therein.

What they seem to mean is constitutionally limited republic, not a pure democracy.

should have read,
What they seem to mean is a constitutionally limited federal republic, not a pure democracy.