Comment: My definitions

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: you are misinformed or mistaken... (see in situ)

My definitions

I believe both of your explanations are democracy, the former being an indirect democracy and the latter being a direct democracy, but neither describes a republic.

My definitions are paraphrased from my own study, and are how I understand these things. Here are my sources for these definitions so you know I am not just pulling stuff from my anus.

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Here is some more citations that support my idea that the people are sovereign and create their own law.

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

"'Sovereignty' means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree." Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903.

Here is a citation that supports my idea that statutes do not apply to the people.

"The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,.....It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound." People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

I reasoned that this all makes perfect sense when you consider these 2 citations in conjunction.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AMENDMENT 9

If a People of the United States exercises a basic right and a law of any state is to the contrary of such exercise of that basic right, the said supposed law of any state is a fiction of law and unconstitutional and no courts are bound to uphold it and no People of the United States is required to obey such unconstitutional law. MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Since the Constitution is the supreme law, any law contrary to the Constitution is void of law, and since the people have all rights. Can I not give notice that when ever a statute denies me a liberty, that that particular liberty is a basic right and that statute is now void of law?