Replies

Being a Constitutional Republic is a form of government. OUR Constitutional Republic is based on the freedoms that are expected in a democracy. The principles of democracy are what our Constitutional Democracy is based on.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident...” does not create a Constitutional Republic; it serves to begin the definition of what follows, which is a Constitutional Republic. It is possible to have a ‘constitutional republic’ not based on the freedoms that a democracy defines.

OUR Constitutional Republic is based on the freedoms that are expected in a democracy. The principles of democracy are what our Constitutional Democracy is based on.
So now, in the space of two sentences, America has been converted to a Constitutional Democracy?
Were you merely paying lip service to the Constitutional Republic before?

The Rule of Law is what our Constitutional Republic is based upon, not the principles of democracy.

The Federalist Papers : No. 14

The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

You continue the errors of the past's confounding with your current day confounding.

A Government of Laws, Not of MenAnd what, according to Adams, were to be the principles at the heart of the American regime? The principles of nature. Adams famously called a republic “a government of laws, not of men.” He was quoting James Harrington. The context is worth noting: “Empire of laws, not of men,” Harrington wrote, is “according to ancient prudence.” In contrast, “modern prudence” counsels that “some man, or some few men, subject a city or a nation, and rule it according to his or their private interest: which, because the laws in such cases are made according to the interest of a man, or of some few families, may be said to be the empire of men, and not of laws.” The empire of laws is concerned with right; the empire of men, with power.