The falling of our democracy (Page 10): The problem with the term "democracy" is how it is used and promoted, to discount the protections our Constitution provides against a simple...

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

working class stiff wrote:

It's never as simple as folks make out. The Founders created a hybrid.

https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democracy

The problem with the term "democracy" is how it is used and promoted, to discount the protections our Constitution provides against a simple majority rule.
Do you not wonder why "L*****ts" push for a pure democracy? Much easier for the PTB/big money to take control.
They push for the elimination of the e*******l college, and erasing the protections of the "minority", etc.
All by controlling the v**e/v**ers/v**e counters.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

zillaorange wrote:

Stick with it Critical Critic ! Welcome to the forum & hang on for a wild ride !!!

Thank you very much, zillaorange. Got to say... I’m white knuckled.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

slatten49 wrote:

Why be redundant, CC? The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments of The U.S. Constitution.

I see your point, slatten49, but they’re called amendments for a reason, having not been adopted until 1791. After the constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. At any rate, the word democracy is not to be found.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

slatten49 wrote:

Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

By Eugene Volokh , May 13, 2015

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to v**e for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority v**e. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of B****stone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s B****stone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular v**e — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.

Now one can certainly argue that some aspects of U.S. government should become less direct, and filtered through more layers of representation. One can argue, for instance, that the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and that U.S. senators should no longer be elected directly by the people, but should return to being elected by state legislators who are elected by the people. Or one can argue for repealing state- and local-level initiative and referendum schemes. Or one can argue for making the E*******l College into a deliberative body, in which the e*****rs are supposed to discuss the candidates and make various political deals, rather than being elected solely to v**e for particular candidates. And of course one can equally argue for making some aspects of U.S. government more direct, for instance by shifting to truly direct e******n of the president, or by institute a federal-level initiative and referendum.

But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.” “Democracy” and “republic” aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as “a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people”). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era,
'democracy' has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.

Is the United States of America a republic or a de... (show quote)

I would first like to say thank you for engaging me on this subject matter, I have read many of your posts, and find you to be quite the gentleman, whether you agree with someone’s comments or not. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

-Hamilton Albert Long

”It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free e******ns by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the e*****rate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority v**e (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar v**e of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors nor the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The t***h is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in t***h in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period."

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection wh**ever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts nor any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect e******y in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence.”

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

”A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the e*****rate.
The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government ***(that of a Republic)*** presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. (But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.)”

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

eagleye13 wrote:

The problem with the term "democracy" is how it is used and promoted, to discount the protections our Constitution provides against a simple majority rule.
Do you not wonder why "L*****ts" push for a pure democracy? Much easier for the PTB/big money to take control.
They push for the elimination of the e*******l college, and erasing the protections of the "minority", etc.
All by controlling the v**e/v**ers/v**e counters.

OFFda..

control,,, what do you think is going on right now, today under the current orange administration??

Money and power is going to the very small part of our nation that is rich enough for the con man to wish he was part of them..

Try and think along with your babble..

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

The Critical Critic wrote:

”A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the e*****rate.
The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government ***(that of a Republic)*** presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. (But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.)”

i ”A Republic, on the other hand, has a very diff... (show quote)

Also:

”The creation of the new, central government by the Constitution in 1787-1788 as a genuine Republic was in fulfillment of public demand for precisely such a government, then designated as such. One of the most interesting pronouncements regarding this topic before the Declaration of Independence was in the "Instructions of the Inhabitants of Malden, Massachusetts to their Representatives in Congress" on May 27, 1776, as follows:

"For these reasons, as well as many others which might be produced, we are confirmed in the opinion, that the present age will be deficient in their duty to God, their posterity and themselves, if they do not establish an American republic. This is the only form of government which we wish to see established; for we can never be willingly subject to any other King than he who, being possessed of infinite wisdom, goodness and rectitude, is alone fit to possess unlimited power . . . if they [the Continental Congress] should declare America to be a free and independent republic, your constituents would support and defend the measure, to the last drop of their blood, and the last farthing of their treasure."

The King referred to here is, of course, Man's Creator: God. The Malden resolution's prescription of a Republic for America was matched by other substantially similar declarations in that Period--for instance that reported in the previously-mentioned "Essex Result" (report of the 1778 Convention of the towns of Essex County, Massachusetts) stating that: "A republican form [of government] is the only one consonant to the feelings of the generous and brave Americans." This was in rejecting this State's first proposed Constitution.

On July 1, 1776, John Adams--on the eve of the Declaration--in a letter to Archibald Bullock, hailed the new prospect in these words: "May Heaven prosper the new-born republic . . ." Realizing that the Articles of Confederation did not and could not satisfy the need, or provide, for a Republic, Hamilton wrote on July 4, 1782 ("The Continentalist," number 6), that: "There is something noble and magnificent in the perspective of a great Federal Republic, closely linked in the pursuit of a common interest, tranquil and prosperous at home, respectable abroad . . ." In the Framing Convention on June 1, 1787, James Wilson asserted that America's manners were "so republican, that nothing but a great confederated Republic would do for it." He commented further on this topic in the Convention: "A confederated republic joins the happiest kind of Government with the most certain security to liberty." He also used the same term, or one comparable such as "Federal Republic," to describe the form of the new government in several instances during his remarks in the debates in the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. Using the term "republican government" to refer to the form of a Republic, Hamilton stated in the New York Ratifying Convention: "We all, with equal sincerity, profess to be anxious for the establishment of a republican government, on a safe and solid basis. It is the object of the wishes of every honest man in the United States . . ." In The Federalist number 39, Madison--referring to the proposed central government as "strictly republican" (meaning a Republic)--stated:

"It is evident that no other form would be reconcileable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the revolution; or with that honorable determination, which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."

He also used the terms "republican form" (no. 37) and "a compound republic," "federal republic" and "extended republic" (no. 51).

These examples sufficiently illustrate the point that The Founders and other leaders, as well as many other thoughtful people in that day--such as the inhabitants of Malden and of Essex County mentioned above--well understood the nature of a Republic and were determined that the United States government be a Republic, such as the central government created later by the United States Constitution. (Note also the 1776 Pittsfield Resolution, if you wish to do further reading)”

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

And finally:

”The Federal government is a Republic and this form of government is guaranteed to each of the States, under the Constitution (Article IV, Section 4). This Republic (the central Republic) is, however, different in a most important respect from the State Republics. To lose sight of this fact, of this difference between them, is to overlook the deep significance of America's federated system--a federation of Republics featuring decentralized power.
The principal difference, for present purposes, is as to quantity of power. The central Republic is a delegated-power government which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended. These include chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison). Each State Republic is a full-power government which possesses the vastly varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State" (again quoting The Federalist number 45). The full-power government of each State is, nevertheless, subject to the State Constitution as well as to the United States Constitution's grant of power to the Federal government and its limitations which are expressly specified as applying to the State governments. A State government, therefore, does not possess the unlimited power of legal sovereignty--that is, total power over all persons and things within its jurisdiction. The central and the State Republics are constitutionally limited governments, in keeping with the American formula: Limited for Liberty.

Governments of such limited-power character as these Republics are to be distinguished from the type possessing sovereign power, unlimited or total power as mentioned above, such as Great Britain's Representative Democracy, previously discussed. This clear and precise definition of the term "sovereign power" is different from, and preferable to, the more general and loose use of the word "sovereign" as meaning merely a government exercising the usual powers of self-government, and of declaring war and peace, without outside control. Under the American philosophy and system, the people alone possess political sovereignty and as the creators of their tools--the Federal and State governments--they do not permit any of these governments to possess the total powers of legal sovereignty. This political sovereignty of the people, moreover, is limited by the traditional American philosophy in favor of protection of The Individual's God-given, unalienable rights. As Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, one of The Framers, stated in his separate opinion in the 1793 Chisholm case, in discussing at length the concept of sovereignty in relation to the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, they bar from the American governmental scene every pretense of sovereign power governmentally (emphasis per original):

"To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established the Constitution. They might have announced themselves "SOVEREIGN" people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration."

Here he referred to two entirely different things: legal sovereignty of government---entirely lacking in the limited-power government of the United States--and political sovereignty of the people. The legislative body (the General Court) of Massachusetts, in its Proclamation of January 23, 1776, also meant legal power (legal sovereignty) of government in contrast to political power (political sovereignty) of the people, in stating (and in effect defining "sovereign power"):

"It is a maxim that in every government, there must exist, somewhere, a supreme, sovereign, absolute, and uncontrolable power; but this power resides always in the body of the people; and it never was, or can be delegated to one man, or a few; the great Creator has never given to men a right to vest others with authority over them, unlimited either in duration or degree."

To repeat, no government in the United States--least of all the limited-power, delegated-power, central government--possesses legal power of sovereignty: sovereign power.

The difference between the Federal government's power and that of the government of each of the States is more easily understood in the light of the situation existing in 1787-1788 when the Constitution was being framed and ratified, in order to bring into existence the Federal government. At that time, the original thirteen States were already in existence. They ante-dated the creation of the Federal government by the Constitution, which supplanted the Articles of Confederation by consent of the people expressed through the State Ratifying Conventions. Under those Articles, there had been no central government with any power over the individual citizen or over the State governments. The Confederation was a mere treaty arrangement between the independent governments of the several States--by approval of their legislatures only and not by any direct authorization by the people of each State. The Confederation had no Executive Department and no Judicial Department--nothing but a legislative body, the Congress, which was completely powerless and could only request the States to provide money for it, or to do other things. The Confederation was, in t***h, not a real government; and the State governments freely flouted with impunity the Articles of Confederation whenever this suited the pleasure of any of them. By 1787, the collapse of any pretense that the Confederation Congress possessed any governmental power, or authority, or any effectiveness governmentally, was complete--a topic to be discussed in detail in Part III.

Each of the State governments was, therefore, actually exercising without any check virtually full governmental power whenever, and to the extent that, it chose so to do by the time the proposed, new Constitution, as framed in 1787, was submitted to the States for ratification. By action of the State Ratifying Conventions in 1787-1788, the sovereign people of each ratifying State exercised their indubitably reserved right and power by completely ignoring the Confederation and consenting to the creation of the new government--granting to it only that comparatively small part of the State government's powers which was specified in the Constitution as being so delegated. This is how the Federal government came into being as a delegated-power Republic possessed of only a few, limited powers as enumerated in the Constitution. All of the remaining powers of each State government and its people were reserved by them--as later expressly stated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which merely confirmed the already-existing fact of this reservation, or retention, of power by them; subject only to the few limitations expressly specified in the Constitution as applying against the States. This is made clear beyond possibility of doubt by the writings of the leaders of that period, including especially various signers of the Constitution. The clearest and most comprehensive exposition is contained in The Federalist, particularly numbers 17, 32, 33 and 83 by Hamilton and numbers 39, 40, 41 and 45 by Madison. Before 1789, Americans were unified in spirit and philosophy but not as to governmental system.

The foregoing exposes the unsoundness of any claim that the central government possesses inherent powers amounting to sovereign power--or any power wh**ever other than, or in excess of the limits of, those enumerated in the Constitution, as amended, as being delegated to it expressly or related to such express powers by necessary implication. If such a claim were true, the Federal government would be a government not of definitely limited powers but of powers without definable limits. Nothing could be more antithetical to the t***h, as proved by all pertinent historical records, notably The Federalist. Nothing could be more violative of the controlling intent of those who framed and adopted the Constitution in 1787-1788, in keeping with the principle of the Declaration of Independence--that government is permitted to possess only "just powers" (limited powers). Any use of the term "sovereign," or "sovereignty," in seeking to define the limited, delegated, power of the central government is unsound.

As the Supreme Court stated in 1936--for perhaps the thousandth time since 1789--(Butler case, at its page 63), each State possesses full governmental powers except such as the people, by the Constitution, either conferred on the Federal government, denied to the States, or reserved to themselves. This is true according to the original intent of those who framed and ratified the Constitution and, therefore, of the people for whom they acted; and this intent is forever controlling, subject only to the people's changing the Constitution, by amendment.

The Federal government thus started out with nothing like the full powers of one of the State governments, much less the unlimited power of a sovereign government. Under the Constitution, as amended, the Federal government still retains its original, strictly limited-power character--limited to the relatively few enumerated powers which have been delegated to it as discussed above. All of the amendments to the Constitution combined have not altered this fundamental of its character. On the contrary, each amendment which granted to this government any additional, specific and limited power only served to confirm its limited power character and the underlying principle of constitutionally limited government.

A main aspect of the federated system of republics, as contemplated by those who framed and adopted the Constitution, was the system of political checks by the States upon the central government--as explained, in part, by Madison in a 1787 letter to Jefferson (then in Paris), soon after the Framing Convention adjourned:

"In the American Constitution The general authority [of the central government] will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capac'y [capacity]. The former will be accountable to their constituents at moderate, the latter at short periods. The President also derives his appointment from the States, and is periodically accountable to them. This dependence of the General [central] on the local authorities, seems effectually to guard the latter against any dangerous encroachments of the former; whilst the latter, within their respective limits, will be continually sensible of the abridgement of their power, and be stimulated by ambition to resume the surrendered portion of it."

By the words "the subordinate authorities" Madison meant the States--through the people and the government of each of the separate States. The original system provided that the Senators from each State would be chosen by its Legislature (changed by the 17th Amendment); while the system of E*****rs of each of the States choosing the President is provided for in Section 1 of Article II, as modified by the 12th Amendment.”

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Mr. Slatten49, I know my posted replies are long, but I hope you will consider them perhaps for some bedtime reading. Thank you for your article, I may not agree with it in its entirety, I appreciated it nonetheless.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

The Critical Critic responded: "I would first like to say thank you for engaging me on this subject matter, I have read many of your posts, and find you to be quite the gentleman, whether you agree with someone’s comments or not. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance."

Thank you for the kind words, sir. I am always open to making new acquaintances, especially with those who remain civil and respectful. However, perhaps due to the season, I am in somewhat of a break from OPP by limiting myself primarily to frivolous engagements with a few others.

I offer a somewhat belated welcome to this forum and wish you & yours a wonderful Thanksgiving.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

slatten49 wrote:

The Critical Critic responded: "I would firs... (show quote)

Thank you very kindly for the welcome, and holiday wishes, sir. I certainly understand the part about taking a break, these forums can take a toll, especially for folks who have been here as long as you have. Thanks again.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

working class stiff wrote:

It's never as simple as folks make out. The Founders created a hybrid.

https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democracy

For your consideration, working class stiff...

by: Earl Zarbin

A coworker, assigned to write a newspaper story about Independence Day talks in Arizona, opened with this sentence:

"Lawmakers and political figures beckoned back to the first Fourth of July in talks throughout the state yesterday with the message that democracy is hard to come by and even harder to maintain."

This linkage of the word "democracy" with the Declaration of Independence surprised me. When I asked if the word "freedom" might not be more correct, he replied: "I didn’t think about it that much when I wrote it."

Precisely. Seldom do we think about it. Woodrow Wilson said, "The world must be made safe for democracy." Would it have made any difference if he had used "freedom" instead of "democracy"? Perhaps not, but it is delusion either to suggest or to believe that the words are alike in meaning or significance.

Freedom is "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action; liberation from s***ery or restraint or from the power of another." Democracy is "government by the people; especially rule of the majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free e******ns."

In no way can the words "freedom" and "democracy" be substituted without confusion. That they are frequently used for one another is understandable. Democracy, not freedom, is repeatedly held up to us as representative of the ideal. If we have democracy, we are presumed to have freedom, according to much of the oratory. But we can—and do in fact—have denials of freedom brought about by democratic or majority rule. Prohibitions against peaceful citizens entering peaceful occupations and pursuits abound. For instance, no one can open up new land to cotton without an allotment; no one can start a radio or television broadcasting station without approval. Instead of relying upon market determination of approval or allotment for every honest enterprise, all too often permission from government must first be won. And there are countless examples of how such economic freedom has been denied under democracy.

Freedom is one thing, democracy another. They may be related in some ways. But the concepts are not interchangeable, nor should the nature and purpose of the two be confused.

*_

”If you work for a man, in Heaven’s name work for him; and stand by the institution he represents. Remember—An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If you must growl, condemn, and eternally find fault, why—resign your position and when you are on the outside, damn to your heart’s content—but as long as you are a part of the institution, do not condemn it. If you do, the first high wind that comes along will blow you away and probably you will never know why.”

ELBERT HUBBARD

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

permafrost wrote:

OFFda..

control,,, what do you think is going on right now, today under the current orange administration??

Money and power is going to the very small part of our nation that is rich enough for the con man to wish he was part of them..

Try and think along with your babble..

We had 16 years with the democrats in the whirte house (8 Clintons, 8 Obamas), with a complacent MSM letting them get away with it.
Crooks protect fellow crooks.

debeda

eagleye13 wrote:

We had 16 years with the democrats in power, with a complacent MSM letting them get away with it.
Crooks protect fellow crooks.

trucksterbud

Airforceone wrote:

Trump has a fetus for Autocracy if Donald Trump ha... (show quote)

H**e to be the one to point this out to you, America was never a 'Democracy', we are a "REPUBLIC", or did you never say the "Pledge of Allegiance" or read any books about how and why America was founded...???

As for the rest of your misspelled, rambling personal vendetta over Trump, maybe......GET OVER IT....????

Get out of the basement and get a life...????