I would expect the US priority would be giving $33 billion to farmers to aid crop production, and also using those fancy emergency powers to prioritize growth and distribution of grains and feed stock instead of ginseng and canola?
Just food for thought...
You no longer live in a constitutional republic either
Legally speaking, our constitution is what defines our country and its government, and the constitution defines a republic, not a democracy. The constitution does not guarantee (or even mention) citizens' rights or privileges to vote. In fact, most citizens had no right to vote for most of our nation's history. The moment they did gain this right was the moment the nation started to fall apart.
However, because our government no longer adheres to its defining document, it could be more accurately said that we live in a failed state. The government is certainly not weak, but the government that the constitution defines is nearly gone, and that makes our constitutional republic a failed state that is occupied by a "democratic" tyranny.
You're not limited to one adjective/noun pair. The truthfulness of the USA being a democratic republic is up for debate, but they have taught that in schools.
Constitutional republic.
Not "democratic republic". They taught "democratic republic" in school to help indoctrinate children into believing that we lived in a "democracy", which is now what they use (they've since dropped the "republic" part).
A constitutional republic could still have democratic elections and remain a constitutional republic. Conflating democracy and republic and related concepts is how they've confused our younger population into believing we live in a democracy. This is how they have managed to turn our country into a failed state. Referendums are common place now, with big decisions being made in them.
https://legaldictionary.net/constitutional-republic/
I am not conflating the two. I believe that the word democratic, used as an adjective, can apply to various governmental structures as long as the people legitimately have a legally-binding say in who the ultimate decision makers are. Would you entertain the thought of a democratic, constitutional republic or a constitutional, democratic republic?
You seem to be arguing that democracies cannot have constitutions, as having one would make the government constitutional and therefore not democratic. Is that was you mean?