By extended he was referring to geographynever before in history has there been a republic that covered so much territory.
Limited refers to the fact that the Constitution expressly defines what the government can and cannot do.
Commercial refers to our national character.
The Founders said that there were three main national charactersmartial, religious, and commercial. Rome had a martial character, as does China. Ancient Israel had a religious character.
Since religious and martial-character nations tend toward tyranny, the Founders chose commercial.
By federal, Madison meant as much power as possible was preserved with the People, and that the federal government only existed for specific and limited purposes.
The idea of federalism is that the closer one gets to the People the more power there is, while the closer one gets to the federal government, the less power one finds.
Democratic refers to the idea that we are a social democracy, although not a governmental democracy.
Social democracy is the concept that intrinsic in our culture is the understanding that all men and women are created equal, that no individual is better than another, and that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed.
(As an interesting side note, Oliver DeMille gives an updated version of Madisons lengthy label. He says that we are now an Internationalist, Sometimes Constitutional (Except Where Prohibited By Law), Extended (Globally), Increasingly Commercial, National, Representative/Virtual/Popular Democracy, With a Technocratic Supremacist Court. But thats a conversation for another day )
As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10:
democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
In a pure democracy, all it takes to pass a policy is simple majority vote. But what happens if the policy encroaches upon unalienable rights? If 51% vote in favor of it, the 49% who voted against it will be tyrannized.
Furthermore, what always happens in a democracy is that very few people are even actively involvedwhich means that it always degenerates into some type of aristocracy or oligarchy, or rule by few.
To quote James Madison again:
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.
Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.
In other words, a republic has a much greater chance of protecting and preserving unalienable rights than does a democracy.
Democracies in history have always degenerated into mobocracies that tyrannize minorities, and they have always failed.
Beware of those who say we are a democracy they are those who will encroach upon your unalienable rights in the name of equality.
Yes, but leftists like Michelle Obama will forever misapply the word "democracy" to describe the American system of government because in Marxist theory, power is based on a rising up of "the masses."
The most thorough answer came from James Madison, who said that our form of government is an Extended Limited Commercial Federal Democratic Republic.
I thought I was well versed in American history, but I never heard of that exact quote from Madison. What is your source for it?