[Demidog]

Your question is meaningless. We do in fact live under a dictatorship. We call it a republic but so are many military dictatorships in South America and Africa called republics. The fact that we have a benevolant dictator doesn't change the fact that he is a dictator. There is no further restraint on his ability to make war. That is the definition of a dictatorship. That our President hasn't turned the military on us is simply a formality which will be abandoned in the future (and the past).

The fact that 90% of the people would vote to ignore the constitution is not a concern of mine. Obviously all of those who promise to abide by the document either don't know what it says or do not care. So it is a troubling factoid, but it does not change my mind.

[annalex]

The definition of a dictator is one who can dictate laws at will. We, on the other hand, have separation of powers and competitive elections. The question in #131 refers to your ideal representative republic: what do you do if 90% of the population wants a just retaliatory war, and 10% doesn't? You won't answer the question because you don't have an answer, or do you?