Amendments were made to the Constitution to limit the government. 4th Amendment ratified in 1791, 5th Amendment ratified 1791, 6th ratified 1791, and onwards with the rest which addressed issues that came up as we grew as a nation. It used to be that people who didn't own property didn't vote and that changed, lots of things change. Being partisan, however, has not.

Executive orders are not without a check and balance system, the Supreme Court is one of those and the Legislative Branch (The House & Senate) also can check and balance the powers of the President. The ability to do such greatly depends on who is in those positions of power and their duties are not to agree with their partisan friends, but to the Constitution and the constituents that elected them.


As for Democratic system of government (or a DIRECT Democracy) vs a Constitutional Republic, I was showing the differences between the two forms of government. A direct democracy is issue by issue, 1 person, 1 vote, majority rules with no guidelines as to how they can or can't act...so it would be mob rule, no strings attached. Not the case with a Constitutional Republic as the Constitution limits the abilities of the government.

So in a Direct Democracy if they had a vote on firearms and 51% of people said "Ban guns" then guns would be taken from the owners and destroyed.

vs

In our Constitutional Republic 51%, hell even more than that can think/feel about firearms all they want, but the 2nd Amendment keeps confiscation and a total ban of firearms from happening.

So maybe it's a subtle difference but there IS a difference