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.
posted on 02/04/2003 11:59:39 AM PST
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?
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.
posted on 02/04/2003 12:11:00 PM PST
...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.
The article and your post at number 1 are dead-on-target.
posted on 02/04/2003 12:48:49 PM PST
by KC Burke
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.
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.
Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Constitutional republic: The sheep is armed.
posted on 02/04/2003 1:22:49 PM PST
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".
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson