Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: wideminded; Red Steel
.. as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.

What laws is he talking about? The laws legislators will make after they are elected? Or the law inherent in the Constitution? How can laws be determined by the Rule of Law?

============================================================

I don't know if Kreep is aware of it but he appears to be drawing a distinction between a democracy -- or the rule of the majority -- and a republic -- the Rule of Law.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution To The United States reads:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." (emphases mine)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/

So the answer to your question could be that Kreep is referring to "law inherent in the Constitution" as you put it.

He would seem to be arguing for A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT -- Rule of law" -- as opposed to a Democratic form of government: the "whims" of the mob... sometimes referred to as a "mobocracy."

If people can just vote-in whoever they want to -- regardless of the Rule of law -- we no longer have a republican form of government.

STE

39 posted on 11/07/2010 4:04:28 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: STE=Q

Here’s more:

The Constitutional Law Of The United States, by Westel Woodbury Willoughby:

http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/76-Republican-Form-Of-Government-Defined.html

“The late Judge Cooley, in his Principles of Constitutional Law2 has perhaps defined the term as satisfactorily as anyone. “By a republican form of government,” he says, “is understood a government by representatives chosen by the people; and it contrasts on the one side with a democracy, in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign powers of government, and, on the other side, with the rule of one man as King, Emperor, Czar, or Sultan, or with that of one class of men, as an aristocracy.” “In strictness,” Judge Cooley goes on to say, “a republican government is by no means inconsistent with monarchical forms, for a King may be merely an hereditary or elective executive while the powers of legislation are left exclusively to a representative body freely chosen by the people. It is to be observed, however, that it is a republican form of government that is to be guaranteed; and in the light of the undoubted fact that by the Revolution it was expected and intended to throw off monarchical and aristocratic forms, there can be no question but that by a republican form of government was intended a government in which not only would the people’s representatives make the laws, and their agents administer them, but the people would also, directly or indirectly, choose the executive. But it would by no means follow that the whole body of people, or even the whole body of adult and competent persons, would be admitted to political privileges; and in any REPUBLICAN STATE, the LAW must determine the QUALIFICATIONS for ADMISSION to the ELECTIVE franchise.”

STE=Q


40 posted on 11/07/2010 4:40:29 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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