"...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.
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?
posted on 02/04/2003 12:35:51 PM PST
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson