A well-informed citizenry is the most powerful revolutionary force in our Constitutional republic.
We are not a Democracy, but be aware of how our children learn that is what the US is. Very sad.
The American Republic: Examination of the Constitution & Constitutional Issues By: Ben Butler
John Stuart Mill Correct Term U.S. Representative Government = A Republic
U.S. Is A Republic. The supporting documentation comes straight from the words of the Founding Framers themselves in the Federalist Papers and in the Constitution, where the forms of government known as democracies were derided by the Crafters of the Constitution.
In a Republic the Rule of Law applies and is to be a protector of the inalienable rights of all the people, not just those who scream the loudest. The Will of the People is carried out in a constitutional Republic based on the Supreme Law of the land, whereas in a democracy the mob Rules. The Whim of the People, that might become the force of the majority at any given point in time might trend toward trampling on the rights of the powerless minority of people. In an effort to deter the majority from abrogating the rights of the minority of the people, the United States Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to all of the states, and ensures that the nation maintains itself as a republic.
Crafters of the Constitution Speak the Loudest Truth.
U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
FEDERALIST No. 51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788. HAMILTON OR MADISON There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.
First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States...
Federalist PapersFEDERALIST No. 51
Posted on: 11/23/00
This is a Republic
NEW AMERICAN Vol. 16, No. 23 November 6, 2000
Sweet Liberty Discussion Board: Keeping America Free: Election Circus 2000
SweetLiberty Discussion DIRT founder posts message
John L. Perry
The Republic Prevails
John L. Perry
Dec. 13, 2000
Those keeping their faith in the Constitution and patience with its process are rewarded. Although a breech delivery, the Republic has brought forth a president. From the moment Vice President Al Gore refused to accept the original machine count of ballots in Florida – which held the pivotal one-vote margin for Republican George W. Bush in the Electoral College – the issue was in doubt.
But there was never a crisis of the Constitution.
Where there was a crisis was where it has always been ever since the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia.
That original crisis was one of character of the Founding Fathers.
As divided, as contentious, as partisan as could any band of politicians possibly be, they met their crisis of character masterfully...
The Republic Prevails John L. Perry Dec. 13, 2000
December 11, 2000
Victory for the Constitution?
By Larry Elgin
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
We should be reminded on each of the many, many occasions upon which we have seen and heard the Honorable Lois Frankel, minority leader of the Florida House, on television expressing her shock -- her shock, mind you -- and outrage that the Republican majority of her state's legislature is actually adhering to, and proceeding in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America, of just how wonderful and well thought out a document that Constitution it is, along with the Declaration of Independence to which it serves as a guide and structure and the great tradition of the Brythonic Common Law, stretching back into the Celtic and Germanic roots of English liberty concepts and decentralized self-rule which underlies it.
We are truly witnessing, 24 hours a day, it seems, at the end of one century and the dawning of the next, a struggle between the thinly veiled Marxism which poses as "progressive" and a reviving tradition of American constitutionalism. The century now closing witnessed the worst excesses of centralized and totally controlling government in the history of man.
Larry ElginVictory for the Constitution?
December 11, 2000
A Republic, Not a Democracy
Last week I introduced a resolution in Congress which reaffirms our nation's republican form of government. H.Con Res 443 serves as a response to recent calls for the abolition of the electoral college. The collectivist liberals want popular national elections (rather than the electoral college system) because they know their constituencies are concentrated in certain heavily populated states. They want to nullify the voting power of the smaller, pro-liberty states. Supporters of my resolution in Congress can send a strong message that every state still matters, and that liberty is more important than shifting majority sentiment.
Ron PaulA Republic, Not a Democracy
Electoral College an endangered species?
Congressman, activist, elector debate eliminating little-understood institution
By Julie Foster
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12 © 2000
Enrich acknowledged that the United States is a republic rather than a direct democracy, but emphasized his organization's cause.
"We do support living in a democracy, which would require a constitutional amendment," he explained, adding, "I hate to say this to WorldNetDaily, but federalism is dead."
Electoral College an endangered species? DECEMBER 12 © 2000
Citizens' Who Know We are a republic
Citizen Viewpublished Tribune Review
MONDAY NOVEMBER 27 2000
The mind-numbing morass
Joseph Farah editor and chief executive officer of
... Keep your eye on the ball, folks. The important issue is not who wins and who loses. It's how the game of politics in America will be played in the future -- or even if there will be a future for free and fair elections in our fair republic.
Saturday, Nov. 11, 2000
David DelDuca - citizen opinion letter writer
Stanton Heights, PA
The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
Gore & guns
John Ellenberger said he was a licensed gun owner for Al Gore (Letters, Oct. 21).
I think anyone who likes Gore owns no guns and, in fact, belongs to handgun control.
The Constitution, i.e., the Second Amendment, is not about hunting and shooting sports. It is about a representative republic, consenting to be governed.
Mr. Ellenberger is not part of the mainstream at all, or he would know that criminals do not register their weapons or buy them as law-abiding citizens do. The laws he supports only pertain to the good citizens of our republic.
If Mr. Ellenberger would do a little history lesson, he would find all these laws in pre-Hitler Germany, and we know what happened after that.
Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2000
STEPHEN AMBROSE, author and historian:
"... the Electoral College, people are upset, may want to abolish the Electoral College. We live in a federal republic and the states do matter... the republic is going to survive."
BRIAN LAMB, host C-SPAN
"We live in a republic, not a democracy."
HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS
Allen Lightman: "I'm surprised how fragile people think our republic is."
COLIN MCNICKLE, Editorial-Page editor, Tribune-Review
McNickle Tribune Review editorSunday, November 12, 2000
PROF. DAVID EPSTEIN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: We live in a republic, not a democracy, and the founders were very careful to say that they were worried about allowing people to directly elect representatives.
Burden of Proof
The Electoral College: Should It Be Changed?Aired November 6, 2000 - 12:30 p.m. ET
AN EDITOR WHO KNOWS HOORAY
Tribune-Review Colin McNickle
Editorials - Friday, November 10, 2000
The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
Laurel: To voters everywhere. The electorate gave itself quite the civics lesson on Tuesday: Every vote does count, as the race for the presidency shows. No matter for whom you voted, be they Republicans or Democrats or of any party, take a long moment today to fully appreciate that not only did you participate in our electoral process, but also that you live in a republic in which you can.
TRIBUNE-REVIEWGot it correct
New American Congress and the Constitution
by Gary Benoit
Rule XI, Clause 2[l], Subparagraph ) was adopted at the start of the current 105th Congress as a means of reintroducing the Constitution to lawmakers and their staffs. Because the House committees are now required to cite the specific constitutional powers justifying the legislation they submit to the full House, they supposedly must read the Constitution and satisfy themselves that the powers are really contained therein. Also, any congressman is now able to refer to the committee’s constitutional authorization prior to voting on a particular bill and to decide whether or not he agrees that the bill is constitutional. That is not a lot to ask, of course, of lawmakers who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Emphatically - U.S. a republic, not a democracy follow links
December 28, 2000
Political parties were not part of our founding fathers. Patrick Henry was asked about whether we had a democratic society or a Republic. He answered: "You have been given a Republic, if you can keep it." We have a Republic with a democratic system of government which means that we vote for representatives who are to represent the citizenry in a legislature locally, and Congress on the national level. The rights of the minority are not protected in a Democracy. The majority rules with absolute force. A 51 percent plurality can execute the 49 percent, literally speaking. Under a Republic the majority is to function by rule of law - regardless which party wins...
Al Hopfera Pennsylvanian
by John F. McManus
December 29, 2000
Save the Electoral College!
by William Norman Grigg
... At predictable intervals — usually coinciding with a presidential election — advocates of a more centralized, socialist national government propose the abolition of the Electoral College, and the prolonged deadlock in the 2000 presidential campaign prompted unprecedented interest in the idea....
All of these objections to the Electoral College illustrate two profoundly dangerous notions that have become embedded in our political discourse: The idea that our nation was intended to be a "democracy" and that the president is supposed to be a vessel of the "people’s will." Both of these concepts are entirely alien to the constitutional system as designed by the Framers.
"Majority rule" is indeed a basic tenet of democracy. The Framers of the Constitution, however, understanding how democracy rapidly degenerates into mob rule and then into tyranny, created a republic — a government of law — designed to protect the rights of the individual. (For more on our republican form of government, see John F. McManus' article "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" from the November 6, 2000 issue.) As James Madison observed in The Federalist, No. 10, many issues of grave consequence "are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." This is particularly the case when the majority is uninformed about the issues involved and is misled by demagogues who claim to have its best interests in mind. Political issues are best decided after sound deliberation. But the closer a country moves toward direct democracy, the less deliberation takes place, and the more political issues are decided by passion based on the agitated, often deliberately misinformed whims of the moment.
The Founding Fathers understood that just as it is wrong for a dictatorship or a monarchy to violate basic rights, it is also wrong for a "democratic" government to do so. The fact that the rulers of a majoritarian system claim to act in the name of the people for some supposed greater good does not make whatever totalitarian measures they impose any more palatable.
"From their vast knowledge of history, the American Founding Fathers knew that unlimited political power cannot safely be trusted to anyone — not to appointed officials of government, not to elected representatives of the people, not to the people themselves," observed constitutional scholar Dan Smoot. "Hence, they devised a system to control political power by dispersing it and balancing it so that too much power could not be concentrated in any one place."
The system created by the Founders could usefully be thought of as a "mixed government," combining elements of popular, aristocratic, and monarchical governments in a constitutional framework. The functions assigned by the Constitution to the central government were distributed among three branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — with the legislative branch itself split between the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The House represents the people; the Senate was originally elected by the state legislatures, to represent the interests of the various states. The Electoral College — composed of officials chosen by the states in a number equivalent to their respective congressional delegations — was intended to be a limited-term legislative body that would select a chief executive. This system would preserve elements of representation found in both the House and the Senate, while also preserving the powers of the separate states.
Just as importantly, through the Electoral College the process of selecting a president was controlled by the states, rather than by the remote central government, which would always seek to enlarge its powers at the expense of the states. This same arrangement that would protect the states from federal encroachment was also intended to frustrate the emergence of a democratic executive despotism.
To contemporary minds, "democratic despotism" seems like an oxymoron. However, the Founders were quite familiar with the way in which ancient demagogues like Catiline and Caesar had seized power by bribing the masses with other people’s property. In remarks to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, in warning about the evils of an "excess of democracy," made specific mention of "the danger of the leveling spirit" — the plunder-lust that inspires mob rule. Benjamin Franklin also offered a cogent warning about how the "leveling spirit" that animates democracy can lead to monarchical — or executive — despotism.
"There is a natural inclination in mankind to Kingly Government," observed Franklin during the June 2nd session. "They had rather have one tyrant than five hundred. It gives more of the appearance of equality among Citizens, and that they like. I am apprehensive therefore … that the Government of these States, may in future times, end in a Monarchy." That such a monarch would be an elected ruler would be of little comfort, since, as Franklin observed, "There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the people’s money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever."
Subsequent history has amply validated the Founders’ rejection of democracy, as tyrants claiming to embody the "general will" have reigned with blood and horror in nearly every clime. Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany after a perfectly democratic election (with little, if any, demonstrable vote fraud) in which a majority of the voters cast ballots for either the Communist or National Socialist (Nazi) party. As measured in purely democratic terms, the "will of the German people" in 1933 was behind some form of totalitarian rule masked in euphemistic language. Hitler — having won a dominant plurality — was appointed chancellor, quickly consolidated dictatorial powers, and abolished what remained of the independence of Germany’s individual states. Had Germany possessed a mechanism like the Electoral College was originally designed to be, Hitler’s ascent may have been prevented. The German people of the 1930s, after all, did not want to be slaves any more than the American people of today. But many were ignorant of Hitler’s true intent and were swayed by his demagoguery. They were promised security and greatness and given totalitarianism instead.
Hitler’s Nazi Party, like proponents of a directly-elected U.S. president, believed that the Executive should personify the "will of the people." In the section setting forth the concept of Führerprinzip (the "leader principle"), the Nazi Party’s Organization Book explained: "The Führer-Reich of the people is founded on the recognition that the true will of the people … in its pure and uncorrupted form can only be expressed through the Führer.... He shapes the collective will of the people within himself.... [His] power is not limited by checks and controls... but is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited..."
Vol. 17, No. 1January 1, 2001
What do we have? A Republic or a Democracy?
This is a question we need to know if we are going to have responsible representative government.
Unfortunately many people have been told for decades that a Republic and a Democracy are the same, when in fact there is a great gulf between the two so great that the very foundation of our country is at stake if we choose wrongly.
The answer and explanation to this question is quite simple. We have a Republic, not a Democracy. A Democracy is a rule by the majority. Put another way:
the majority is the supreme law of the land and a democracy is unstable since no one is in the majority at all times. This sooner or later will result in a rule by a few. This type of government is referred to as an oligarchy. Kings and dictators are in this type of government.
James Madison had this to say about Democracy on page 81 of the Federalist Papers.
A republican form of government is founded upon a set of laws known as the constitution in which the people elect representatives to enforce the supreme law of the land, that being the constitution, and all subsequent laws provided they do not conflict with the supreme law of the land.
Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees us a republican form of government.
In the pledge of allegiance we take an oath to the republic for which it stands.
Former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Storey said this about the USA.
James Madison on page 82 of the Federalist Papers had this to say about how a Republic differs from a Democracy.
I am saying all this because we are a land governed by laws first and not of people. Those laws have not been obeyed but have been disregarded except when it is politically expedient as I believe has happened; we have been deceived by our many politicans and journalists for decades.
We have also been robbed and continue to be robbed of our national heritage and sovereignty when we are continually called a Democracy.
When will we wake up and stop this thievery?
Will we wait until our Republic disappears?
A land of the free and the home of the brave. It is a choice we must all make.
I for one will not let our Republic slip away, but with God’s help will fight for a Republic as long as I am able.
Charles M. Reese
Charles Reese is an active member of the John Birch Society. His letter was published in a Greensburg newspaper.
Have you found the info on this site useful? Tell a friend!