Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guarantee of a republican form of government
. ^ | 2/4/03 | Marcia H. Armstrong

Posted on 02/04/2003 11:59:39 AM PST by tpaine

Guarantee of a republican form of government

by Marcia H. Armstrong

I admit that I am among the post-Roosevelt public school-indoctrinated adults that were taught to use the word "democracy" to describe our form of government. So it initially surprised me when the same word was used by avowed socialists to taut their political wares. After some research, I found that the system my ancestors helped to create was a "republic," not a democracy. (Although democratic elements, such as the "initiative," have since crept into the system.)

A republic is representative government, where the power of government is delegated to a few elected citizens. These representatives serve for an established term of office. In our constitutional republic, the distribution of power and limits of authority granted are all set down in writing. Because representatives are elected, they are directly accountable to those who elected them. A republic allows the representative to focus on decisions that will serve the best interests of the community; but that will also protect all citizens in the security of their persons and property and the enjoyment of their rights.

The strength of a republic is to elect individuals of the highest character and spirit - those who can be trusted to make good decisions. One might think of a republic as sort of like having a designated driver. On the other hand, in a democracy, each individual directly exercises the power of government. Every citizen participates directly in making the decisions. For obvious reasons, a democracy works best when it is at the small-scale level, where only a few simple issues present themselves. Democracy is also called "majority rule." The best way to describe the detrimental effects of this is to envision two wolves and a sheep sitting down together to vote on what they want for dinner, (or two preservationists and a property owner deciding on how to manage the owner's private land.) Some of the problems with a democracy are:

(1) That the majority is mighty prone to make decisions swayed by the popular passion of the moment;

(2) That there is no one who can be individually held accountable for a decision or action;

(3) That those, who don't understand the issue and often will never be effected by the laws they make, are the ones that often make the law;

(4) That ballots take on proportions of the Encyclopedia Britannica; and (5) That laws and decisions tend to erode individual rights and private property.

Democracy sounds good, but in practice, beliefs held by the majority tend to morph into standards that are officially forced upon everyone as a leveler. This is accomplished either by social coercion ("political correctness,") or through a gazillion behavioral regulations Founders like James Madison, pointed to the will of the majority as the greatest potential threat for encroachment upon personal liberty:

             "Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is a real danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of its constituents." Now, when I now place my hand over my heart and recite the "Pledge of Allegiance," I pay closer attention to the words: ....."and to the Republic, for which it stands." Note that the word "democracy" is entirely absent from that pledge.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
Conventional wisdom has insisted that republics must be small, to avoid a descent into tyranny and oppression.
But small republics quarrel, and cannot always defend their independence. -- By uniting, small republics, states, can protect themselves against aggression, but also against internal subversion or corruption.

This was the intention of the United States Constitution, which guarantees every state in the Union a "republican form of government" (USC 1787, Article IV, Section 4). This united republic of the United States provides a republican model for solving the dilemma of democratic intolerance, that of majority rule.
Our constitution leaves local culture and development to the self-determination of states or localities, while putting certain individual rights under the protection of an over-arching republican constitution , to prevent the tyranny of local majorities.

Thus our founders theory, that our U.S. Constitution would locate rights-protecting basic law at the federal level, while leaving culture-promoting activities to be locally determined, and reasonably regulated.
This reinforces the basic purposes of republican government by preventing the excesses of popular sovereignty, while ensuring that local sovereignty remains the best test of justice, and private perceptions of the common good.

1 posted on 02/04/2003 11:59:39 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
EternalVigilance:
Would even one of the Founders, much less all of them assembled in Congress, have approved of any sort of pornography as being covered under the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-ev-


Then, as now, the founders, in the 10th, delegated such power, - IE, - as that over the commercial & public aspects of sexuality, - was to be left up to state/local standards & ~reasonable~ controls, ---- under a guaranteed republican form of government in the states, - subject to the supreme law of the land, our U.S. Constitution.

-- Thus, 'porno' laws/regulations can be enacted which do not violate our other inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property.

Simple republican concept really. To bad many here at FR have such problems understanding it.

2 posted on 02/04/2003 12:11:00 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
They have probably been listening to NPR too much. Every other guest "expert" they have uses the word "democracy" like most people use "like." (D'ohhh!)
3 posted on 02/04/2003 12:17:41 PM PST by mywholebodyisaweapon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
...preventing the excesses of popular sovereignty, while ensuring that local sovereignty remains the best test of justice, and private perceptions of the common good.

If this is indeed the heart of a true republic, then the republic envisioned by our forefathers, to all intents and purposes, died on April 9, 1865.

4 posted on 02/04/2003 12:22:36 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
"...preventing the excesses of popular sovereignty, while ensuring that local sovereignty remains the best test of justice, and private perceptions of the common good."




If this is indeed the heart of a true republic, then the republic envisioned by our forefathers, to all intents and purposes, died on April 9, 1865.
-mac-


Would you grant that the southern states were exceeding 'popular sovereignty' in ~any~ way by secession?
- IE, were the property rights & liberties of their citizens who did not want to secede being violated?
5 posted on 02/04/2003 12:35:51 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The article and your post at number 1 are dead-on-target.
6 posted on 02/04/2003 12:48:49 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
The Violence that begot Violence
http://Lew Rockwell.com ^ | January 31, 2003 | Lew Rockwell
Posted on 01/31/2003 7:02 AM PST by satyam
The Violence That Begat Violence by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


"The President, a Republican no less, seems to believe that government should be telling us what kind of car to drive, what kind of education our kids should receive, how to cure disease in Africa and the Caribbean, how to liberate women the world over, how to fund technological innovation, and even how to "transform" our "souls" and lift the "hopes of all mankind"


Should our president, under a 'republican form of goverment' be telling us the above?
-- We seem to agree neither he, nor the state, -- should have that power, -- which is the point of this thread.

Yet you seem to want the southern states to have this type of power back before the civil war. - Can you exlain?

7 posted on 02/04/2003 12:55:06 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Thank you.

The catch 22 being that most 'conservatives' here won't even ~try~ to understand the point.
8 posted on 02/04/2003 12:58:27 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The last time that invoking Article 4, Section 4 was considered was during the Civil War, when many Republicans urged President Lincoln to declare that all government officials of Confederate states were fired (never happened). Many also urged Congress to pass a law declaring rebel state governments and borders dissolved (for having dissolved themselves by violating Article 4, Section 4) and to establish a federal Territory of the South. That way, setting up Reconstructed state government could be done as easily as was being done in the western territories. See www.republicanbasics.com.
9 posted on 02/04/2003 1:07:40 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Good post....in my mind the debate between republic vs. democracy boils down to the issue of rights. Our founding fathers envisioned a republic where one's rights are granted by God Almighty and are UNALIENABLE. Their intent was to make sure the rights of Americans are UN-A-LIEN-ABLE which meant the rights of the people could never be threatened or garnished by a fedgov with questionable motives. Our problem is that we've morphed into a "democracy" that has essentially altered our rights and made them into CIVIL RIGHTS...which are basically granted and controlled by gov't. Anyone with some historical knowledge should be able to see the big difference between these two sets of rights.
10 posted on 02/04/2003 1:11:40 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Here is where I support some activism among judges. It is obvious by this clause that the occupation of elected offices by members of the Democrat Party is unconstitutional.
11 posted on 02/04/2003 1:22:12 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Constitutional republic: The sheep is armed.

12 posted on 02/04/2003 1:22:49 PM PST by snarkpup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
In a republic, there will always be those who are compelled to go along with the majority in certain situations. For example, I didn't vote for George W. Bush, but I am forced to recognize him as president of the United States. The same goes for politics at the local level. Those of us who voted against a proposed public school referendum will have our property taxes raised along with those who did vote for that increase.

In the case of secession, the majority of representatives in certain states decided to withdraw from the Union. Of course, such an action would most definitely have had an impact on those who wished to remain, but when it comes to our nation as a "republic," the founders deemed that the various states would comprise that republic. Therefore, each state should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not it would like to continue being part of a monolithic union.

I certainly don't think there is a perfect form of government, but what we have now is essentially one, big nation. State borders are nothing more than lines on a map as far as the federal government is concerned.

13 posted on 02/04/2003 1:23:18 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Should our president, under a 'republican form of goverment' be telling us the above? -- We seem to agree neither he, nor the state, -- should have that power, -- which is the point of this thread.

Yet you seem to want the southern states to have this type of power back before the civil war."

I don't think the state should have that power, but the framers of the Constitution did believe that there were certain powers denied to the federal government that could be exercised by the states. Truth be told, I think the Confederacy violated many of the very principles it claimed to be defending.

14 posted on 02/04/2003 1:32:56 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Many also urged Congress to pass a law declaring rebel state governments and borders dissolved (for having dissolved themselves by violating Article 4, Section 4)
Thanks, - thats an excellent point. - They dissolved their own rights to be treated as republics.


15 posted on 02/04/2003 1:39:04 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
Thanks & regards.
16 posted on 02/04/2003 1:41:11 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
I certainly don't think there is a perfect form of government, but what we have now is essentially one, big nation. State borders are nothing more than lines on a map as far as the federal government is concerned.
13 -mac-

And this is a failure of our political system, not one of the constitution.
-- If a state rebeled peacefully, using the courts & civil disobedience to refuse to acknowlege unconstututional federal law, it could ultimately win in the ~real~ court. The court of public opinion.
The more oppressive the feds grew, the more support the state would get from ~all~ the people.
17 posted on 02/04/2003 1:53:34 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac; tpaine
...but when it comes to our nation as a "republic," the founders deemed that the various states would comprise that republic.
The various States, each being a seperate republic, compromise a union, or confederacy if you will, of republics.
18 posted on 02/04/2003 1:58:40 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
"The various States, each being a seperate republic, compromise a union, or confederacy if you will, of republics."


Exactly. - The key to the union being, -- the states agreement that the U.S. Constitution is to be the supreme 'law of the land', -- as it applies to our basic individual inalienable rights. [Art. VI]

Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
-- This type of law violates any number of the constitutional safeguards of our BOR's.

As we see in CA, 'evil' guns are being regulated out of the hands of law abiding citizens, using this type of statist thinking.
19 posted on 02/04/2003 2:26:46 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; sheltonmac
A very great misperception. I don't know how anyone can view things in the manner in which sheltonmac did.
sheltonmac, do you understand the difference now?
20 posted on 02/04/2003 2:55:14 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
BTTT
21 posted on 02/04/2003 2:57:50 PM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke; tpaine
The article and your post at number 1 are dead-on-target

I'll second that remark.

22 posted on 02/04/2003 3:05:28 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.

None of us like to see, for instance, 'evil' drugs bring used in the repugnant acts of drug abusers. --
-- But we must realise that the enforcement of outright prohibitions violate rights far more than their acts justify.
--Reasonable state/local regulations, as per booze, are thus constitutional. Bans are not.

23 posted on 02/04/2003 3:09:27 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: tpaine
Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
Regulate - agree. Prohibition - disagree, partially.
The States should regulate some things as without those regulations many actual crimes would take place. For instance, a States "weights and measures" regulations. If there were not regulations in such instances then the purchasing of a gallon of gasoline or a pound of vegetables would be at the whim of each merchant. My gallon or pound might be less, constituting theft.
In the prohibition aspect "things" shouldn't be prohibited while "criminal acts" should be prohibited. Murder is a "repugnant act" as well as a criminal act, the same as with rape. I want things such as murder and rape prohibited by law.
However, many "repugnant acts", as they are viewed by some, aren't criminal acts yet are made so within the law. There is simply too much objectivity in stating something is a "repugnant act". One person may not see it as such and another person does. That is why our State legislators are supposed to be objective and look out for the rights of the people as a whole and not cater to "special interests".
Just MO and very limited, but something to think about.
25 posted on 02/04/2003 3:14:48 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Thanks again. - Its encouraging to get some positive feedback, instead of the usual mindless catcalls from the warriors of WOD/gun/liberties crowd.
26 posted on 02/04/2003 3:16:22 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
We do have to clarify our thoughts don't we. So easy to "run amok with snippets", isn't it.
27 posted on 02/04/2003 3:17:11 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
In a democracy the individual takes a hit from both ends, the tyranny of the majority, and the tryanny of the minoirity. Democracy doesn't work, a socialist democracy never works. George Washington, "We have given you a Republic ma'am, if you can keep it".
28 posted on 02/04/2003 3:20:20 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Good info and I would like to add that codes, rules, regulations, etc. are not constitutional unless they were created by the normal legislative process. Codes, regulations, etc. mandated by local gov'ts. are not constitutional because they were created under "color of law" and do not apply to citizens. Our biggest problem is that we have an estimated 60 million+ codes, rules, reg's etc. on the books, the vast majority of which were created as revenue producers.
29 posted on 02/04/2003 3:22:12 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Federalist No. 10
Federalist No. 14
Federalist No. 48
30 posted on 02/04/2003 3:27:18 PM PST by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
George Washington, "We have given you a Republic ma'am, if you can keep it".
Benjamin Franklin, not George Washington.
31 posted on 02/04/2003 3:33:19 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
Well put.

Could you expand on your "color of law", -- 'does not apply to citizens', -- thought though? - You lost me.

32 posted on 02/04/2003 4:24:28 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; tpaine
That is why our State legislators are supposed to be objective and look out for the rights of the people as a whole and not cater to "special interests".

Everything I have stated in this thread would fall under that umbrella. Take the issues of secession and nullification--why would you deny those fundamental rights if they served to protect the rights of the people "as a whole"? Are states republics or not?

In my first post I was simply pointing out the fact that the republic--that is the United States of America--envisioned by our forefathers is dead. It died when when Lincoln used deadly force to prevent a few states from exercising their rights as independent republics. They had willingly joined the union and believed--quite correctly--that they could willingly depart. The majority, however, believed that those states did not have the right to secede, and 620,000 men died as a result of "majority rule."

It's nice to see discussions like this, but when you paint yourself into a corner by believing that things can only be rectified through "using the courts & civil disobedience," you are left with nothing more than a dream that can never be realized. I wonder where we would be if the founders took such a passive approach.

33 posted on 02/04/2003 9:38:41 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It's my understanding that the codes/reg's etc. created by a city council does not have the same force of law as those laws created by normal constitutional process. Most city gov'ts. are now nothing more than corporations attempting to gain more control and revenue from citizens in their alleged jurisdiction. Any set of codes passed by a city council are essentially unenforceable because they are not constitutional in nature and as such are created under "color of law". The mayor and city council are nothing more than the CEO and board of directors of the local corporation known as "The City of...." and have no more jurisdiction over our affairs than would the CEO and board of IBM. Also, when IBM creates a set of codes and rules it's only applicable to their employees, same thing applies to local corporate gov'ts.

34 posted on 02/04/2003 9:44:30 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
bump
35 posted on 02/04/2003 9:46:51 PM PST by A Patriot Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
States rights are your 'dream' and your 'corner'.
- Governments at all levels have only the powers granted to them by the people. -- Powers that respect our constitutional rights. -- They have no other powers.

- You apparently want to reargue the civil war. No thanks.
36 posted on 02/04/2003 10:04:59 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Take the issues of secession and nullification--why would you deny those fundamental rights if they served to protect the rights of the people "as a whole"?
I wouldn't and don't deny the rights of secession and nullification. I personally believe that a State has the right to secede from the union if it so chooses. Ours is supposed to be a voluntary union entered into upon agreed terms, but, as you rightly point out, it was held together by force of arms in the past. It probably would come to that point again, force of arms, to keep the union together if the situation were to repeat itself. Force of arms might be attempted, though I don't think the outcome would be the same.
In the climate of the world today we need the union of our seperate republics moreso than at any other time in history. Restraining the federal powers is what every one of the States should be doing and instead more and more power and authority is being turned over.
Are states republics or not?
Our American States are republics. I thought I made that clear earlier. That touches upon what you wrote earlier and I spoke my piece on that.
37 posted on 02/04/2003 11:31:55 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
BTW...
The majority, however, believed that those states did not have the right to secede, and 620,000 men died as a result of "majority rule."
"The majority" can kiss my backside. They can "believe" whatever the hell they want to. If they want to "believe" that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny exists they can do so.
A belief in some things isn't always reality.
38 posted on 02/04/2003 11:38:40 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; sheltonmac; yall
philman_36
"The various States, each being a seperate republic, compromise a union, or confederacy if you will, of republics."


Exactly. - The key to the union being, -- the states agreement that the U.S. Constitution is to be the supreme 'law of the land', -- as it applies to our basic individual inalienable rights. [Art. VI]

Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
-- This type of law violates any number of the constitutional safeguards of our BOR's.

As we see in CA, 'evil' guns are being regulated out of the hands of law abiding citizens, using this type of statist thinking.
19 posted on 02/04/2003 2:26 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] __________________________________

To: tpaine; sheltonmac
A very great misperception. I don't know how anyone can view things in the manner in which sheltonmac did.
sheltonmac, do you understand the difference now?
20 p
__________________________________
" Take the issues of secession and nullification--why would you deny those fundamental rights if they served to protect the rights of the people "as a whole"? "
-S Mac-

I wouldn't and don't deny the rights of secession and nullification. I personally believe that a State has the right to secede from the union if it so chooses. Ours is supposed to be a voluntary union entered into upon agreed terms, but, as you rightly point out, it was held together by force of arms in the past. It probably would come to that point again, force of arms, to keep the union together if the situation were to repeat itself. Force of arms might be attempted, though I don't think the outcome would be the same.
In the climate of the world today we need the union of our seperate republics moreso than at any other time in history. Restraining the federal powers is what every one of the States should be doing and instead more and more power and authority is being turned over.

"Are states republics or not?"

Our American States are republics. I thought I made that clear earlier. That touches upon what you wrote earlier and I spoke my piece on that.
________________________________

At #20, above, you agreed with me that states do not have the power to violate our constitution. -- Yet you agree with S-Mac that they can nullify/secede from our union, in effect destroying that same document.

I don't get 'it'. - Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.

-- What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?


39 posted on 02/05/2003 1:08:30 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
...you agreed with me that states do not have the power to violate our constitution.
Where does the Constitution state that States can't secede? I don't see it anywhere.
40 posted on 02/05/2003 1:21:51 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

At #20, above, you agreed with me that states do not have the power to violate our constitution. -- Yet you agree with S-Mac that they can nullify/secede from our union, in effect destroying that same document.

I don't get 'it'. - Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.

-- What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?
39 tpaine


"Where does the Constitution state that States can't secede? I don't see it anywhere."
-p36-

Where does it say they can? - But in any case, you must agree that secession would destroy our republic, no?
- Therefore, what amendments are necessary to save our constitution?
41 posted on 02/05/2003 2:01:43 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Where does the Constitution state that States can't secede?
Where does it say they can?
Seems we're at an impasse.
42 posted on 02/05/2003 2:37:06 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I don't get 'it'. - Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.

-- What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?
39 tpaine


"Seems we're at an impasse."
-p36-

Only on that rather inane & limited point, imo.

Can you address the broad scope of the issue, as I outlined it at #39?
43 posted on 02/05/2003 3:01:13 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; philman_36
"Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended."

I think the perfect start would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. That is when the state governments finally lost their voice in Washington.

Lew Rockwell has made a compelling case that the Constitution is a "dead letter." The federal government has violated that document/contract in virtually every way, rendering it null and void.

Now, I wouldn't go that far; I still believe that it is possible to reclaim those principles. But I also believe that any change for the better will only come about when enough people within enough states come to their senses and unite to take a stand against the federal government. They could do this via the ballot box--for now, at least.

44 posted on 02/05/2003 3:59:39 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Can you address the broad scope of the issue, as I outlined it at #39?
The "broad scope" seems to be limited to your...
The key to the union being, -- the states agreement that the U.S. Constitution is to be the supreme 'law of the land', -- as it applies to our basic individual inalienable rights.
Yes, the States did agree that the U.S. Constitution was to be the supreme 'law of the land' governing the government's activities, functions, design, etc. as well as "our basic individual inalienable rights".
I don't see an agreement in 20. I see no contention either. You need to to back up to 18 and look at that again. I merely corrected what I thought was a misperception.
Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.
Where do you find me in contention with this? I agree with the basic principles of the Constitution. I disagree with what some says it does and doesn't allow/say. Just because it doesn't say that a State can't secede doesn't mean, to me, that a State can't do so if it chooses to do so. Ours is supposed to be a voluntary union!
As an example...I can't force someone to stay in a club they no longer wish to have any part of even though they were a charter member of that club.
-- What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?
Proposed amendments regarding what? Under your scenario a simple amendment process wouldn't work. A whole new Constitutional Convention would be necessary citing specifically that secession was disallowed as well as numerous other things.
45 posted on 02/05/2003 4:00:56 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac; tpaine
I think the perfect start would be to repeal the 17th Amendment.
No problem with me on that. The 16th too.
What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?
tpaine wants new amendments though, not repeal of old ones.
I think, I'm not totally sure though, that what he wants would, in actuality, be a calling for a Constitutional Convention.
46 posted on 02/05/2003 4:21:51 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.

I still believe that it is possible to reclaim those principles. But I also believe that any change for the better will only come about when enough people within enough states come to their senses and unite to take a stand against the federal government. They could do this via the ballot box--for now, at least.

We seem to have come full circle, as in the above you now making aproximately the same point I did here at #17:

-- If a state rebeled peacefully, using the courts & civil disobedience to refuse to acknowlege unconstututional federal law, it could ultimately win in the ~real~ court. The court of public opinion.
The more oppressive the feds grew, the more support the state would get from ~all~ the people.
#17

47 posted on 02/05/2003 4:32:53 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Can you address the broad scope of the issue, as I outlined it at #39?

The "broad scope" seems to be limited to your...

The key to the union being, -- the states agreement that the U.S. Constitution is to be the supreme 'law of the land', -- as it applies to our basic individual inalienable rights.

Yes, the States did agree that the U.S. Constitution was to be the supreme 'law of the land' governing the government's activities, functions, design, etc. as well as "our basic individual inalienable rights". I don't see an agreement in 20. I see no contention either. You need to to back up to 18 and look at that again. I merely corrected what I thought was a misperception.

Your reply to my #19 speaks for itself:
"--- A very great misperception. I don't know how anyone can view things in the manner in which sheltonmac did. sheltonmac, do you understand the difference now?
20 posted on 02/04/2003 2:55 PM PST by philman_36 ---"

----------------------------------

Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.

Where do you find me in contention with this? I agree with the basic principles of the Constitution. I disagree with what some says it does and doesn't allow/say. Just because it doesn't say that a State can't secede doesn't mean, to me, that a State can't do so if it chooses to do so. Ours is supposed to be a voluntary union! As an example...I can't force someone to stay in a club they no longer wish to have any part of even though they were a charter member of that club.

As I've tried to explain, secession makes our constitutional union meaningess.

------------------------

-- What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?

Proposed amendments regarding what?

Beats me! You want the states to have the power to secede, not me. Tell me why.

Under your scenario a simple amendment process wouldn't work. A whole new Constitutional Convention would be necessary citing specifically that secession was disallowed as well as numerous other things.

My 'scenario'? Where?

48 posted on 02/05/2003 5:02:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson