Posted on 06/24/2019 1:07:11 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Now and then the topic of contract or compact as it applies to our Constitution comes up on the web. Outwardly, its a sleep-worthy subject. Who cares one way or the other? My American Heritage Dictionary doesnt help very much in distinguishing between the two. Where contracts imply two parties negotiating across a table, a compact is along the lines of a group of people agreeing to do certain things. Contracts also have an element of enforceability typically not associated with compacts.
The subject isnt as mundane as it appears because it touches the core of our self-worth as republican citizens. It was important enough for our framing generation to address in 1789 as James Madison shepherded a Bill of Rights through the first Congress.
Every nation is the product of its history, and the 17th century struggles of Englishmen to wrest a few prerogatives from King James II in the form of a Bill of Rights figured large to Americans in 1789. This was the central rift between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, that all governments, according to Anti-Federalists, were contracts between the people and their rulers. As such, respected men like Patrick Henry and George Mason could demand a Bill of Rights to establish a plain, strong, and accurate criterion by which the people might at once determine when, and in what instance their rights were violated.
Federalist James Iredell recognized the break in history represented in the Constitution. In other countries, where the origin of government is obscure, and its formation is different from ours, government may be deemed a contract between the rulers and the people. But here, the people are known with certainty to have originated it themselves. The people may new-model their government whenever they think proper.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
Those of us who have read Angelo M. CODEVILLA's profoundly influential, Americas Ruling ClassAnd the Perils of Revolution will know that the deep state is so pervasive and the Republican Party so callow that only a constitutional remedy as provided by the Constitution itself will suffice to restore the Republic and, ultimately, make America great again.
bkmk
The corruption is too thick for most Americans to see.
That scholar described what Randy Barnett calls the “Democratic Constitution” in which everyone in the US, legal or not, gets to vote for the House, Senate and Presidency. However, after the elections, the voters would be wise to sit down, shut up, and not dare to criticize their elected masters.
The more" democratic," the less actual representative government.
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.