[OneWingedShark]

>Germany has done far better under constitutional republic governance than under a strong paternal Kaiser or Chancellor. Both for themselves and their neighbors.

Just because it’s done better under a Constitutional Republic does not mean that it did not do well under a Kaiser/Chancellor/Emperor/Fuhrer. {’Well’ in terms of prosperity/direction as opposed to morally.}

>The concept that all men were created equal was at the time a blatant slap in the face of the aristocracy. Our revolution was directly and vocally anti aristocracy and the supposedly divine right of Kings, and instead all about the UNIVERSAL natural rights of man.

Question: Does the universal rights of man preclude ALL aristocracy and hereditary rights? If so, is there a distinction between spiritual heredity and physical? If there is, explain Exodus 204-6 (part of the 10 Commandments), wherein God says that sin/inequity will be visited to the third and fourth generations AND that He will show love to a thousand generations of those who keep His commandments. ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:4-6&version=NIV )

>A constitutional republic of limited and enumerated powers

Technically speaking the [English] monarchy was/has-been a Constitutional Monarchy since the Magna Carta.

>was thought by them to be the only form of governance compatible with the natural rights of man.

I disagree with them then. Any government that is instituted by man is flawed, because man himself is flawed, and will become corrupted over time; or do you deign to defend our 111th Congress as uncorrupted? (I wrote this when they were doing the AIG thing: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dv698tm_22dr6x3nfb )

A Constitutional Republic DOES [indeed] have the [possible] advantage of denying the corrupt a permanent position; however, Teddy Kennedy and John Murtha are [recently living] proof against the infallibility thereof.

Also...
>Our revolution was directly and vocally anti aristocracy and the supposedly divine right of Kings

Then explain “Kennedy’s Seat” and Murtha’s tenure, and the Bush Dynasty. As far as I can tell we have become a semi-hereditary government.

[allmendream]

All aristocratic “right” to rule, yes. Men were not meant to be ruled, but to be free. Free men may elect men to govern them. Only slaves are ruled. By embracing the concept of aristocracy you embrace your own slavery. Unless you deem yourself a rightful ruler, in which case you are a wannabe tyrant who would enslave his fellow man.

Either way aristocracy is slavery and tyranny, antithetical to the natural rights of man that our founders recognized.