I don't see how having a constitution in itself would prevent this though or how a constitution would be necessary to prevent this.

The law defines due process. If a constitution said that the police could search any home at any time under any condition then random searches would be due process.

On the other hand you have countries like the UK that do not have a constitution in the literal sense but the powers of the executive are restraint anyway. Maybe (as above) not in the way you would want them to be but they could be. I don't see any reason why it should be impossible to have the restraints you mentioned without a constitution.

Where does the "constitution" in you constitutional republic come from?

That is a good explanation! I can see how that would apply to certain states that called themselves republics (Venice, Lübeck) and it's a definition that makes sense (although I would say that the word republic would imply something else to me). Thank you!

>The line between definitions is definitely thin. but in a practical sense not every republic is a democracy.

I'm not asking you if there is a difference but what that difference is. I am sure every republic necessarily is a democracy. Res publicas: "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives". How could you get this without a democratic process?

> they might say they "rule for the people" but de facto it ends up being a tyranny/autocracy

How could you argue that it is a republic then? If it's not the people ruling than it's not a republic. North Korea calls itself democratic, I don't suppose you would believe them, would you?

Please excuse my impatience. I feel like we are running circles. Could you describe a state that is a republic - not by claiming to be one but by fulfilling the definition that the power lies with the people and their elected officials - but not a democracy?

So what you meant here

>No, but there are better ones than democracy.

Was that a democracy is the best system but that it should also fulfil certain criteria?

Where do you get the definition from? It's not what I remember from school. Wikipedia says the same thing my teachers taught me:

>A republic (from Latin res publica 'public affair') is a form of government in which "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives".

Do you disagree with that definition?

What does a republic that is no a democracy look like? How would governance be a public matter if people didn't get to vote? If people get to vote how is it not a democracy?