Posted on 05/01/2006 10:23:10 AM PDT by Sweetjustusnow
Whew! There were a few twists and turns in that post.
Let's start with the premise that our Representatives are to uphold the "rule of law" and "do what is right" for the Republic!
Well they won't be serving for long if they can't get reelected.
According to those who believe in a Republic what those elected should do is tell you it is none of the majorities business what they do. It is their business. In a Republic the elected representatives don't serve the people they RULE THEM.
So what does "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" mean? These representatives are choosen from among the people (they must be citizens) and always answer to the people. I will laugh in the face of any politician who tries to tell me his business is not my business. Great campaign material. You should apply to work for the Democrats.
Just as Joe McCarthy had most things right....not all, and his methodology, just as the JBS, could have been better...even so, he was correct and so was Robert Welch.
The study of and presentation of history, when not tampered with, is a wonderful thing.
FMCDH(BITS)
DAMN GOOD POINT!
WAR DEPARTMENT TM_2000-25, issued November 30, 1928
Address:http://www.barefootsworld.net/tm_2000-25.html
I am posting this for discussion and teaching purposes for those who are ignorant of the true nature of our Government which our founding fathers intended.
"Knowing that a democracy is a government of men in which the tyranny of the majority rules, America's Founding Fathers wisely created a republic - a government ruled by law."
+++++++
Well put SJN.. As we see, you've attracted one of those who need to be taught:
paulsen wrote:
Granted, we're not a "true" or a "pure" democracy, but decisions are made by our elected representatives in a democratic fashion (ie., majority rules).
Not true paulsen, -- you cannot refute that our Constitution 'rules' over any attempt by a majority to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; --- no matter how hard you try.
[and you try every day]
More the issue, someone needs to tell the U.S. Supreme Court that we're not a judicial oligarchy.
More to the actual issue, the democrats on the Court need to be told by their supporters that 'majority rule' is not acceptable. -- Obviously, you are one of those who cannot or will not do this; -- fess up.
Of the Simplicity of Criminal Laws in different Governments
In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments:
in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.
THE SPIRIT OF LAWS Book VI By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu
WAR DEPARTMENT TM_2000-25, issued November 30, 1928
Address:http://www.barefootsworld.net/tm_2000-25.html
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
-- The National Government is not an assemblage of States, but of individuals.
To refuse allegiance to the United States is to be a traitor to the Nation. However, in the dual capacity of citizenship, we render service as citizens of both the State in which we hold legal residence and the United States.
Each of our 48 States retains its own sovereignty in all matters relating exclusively to State affairs, in which it is protected by its own constitution.
In all interstate, national, or international affairs both the citizen and the State owe allegiance to the Union.
"Justice."
— Our Government, assures "justice" in that it is a government of laws, not of men. In the heat of passion or sectional interest, in clashes between groups or questions of policy, no minority or bloc may enforce its will.
Should a majority seek to injure the rights of an individual citizen, the power of veto resting in the President, or the power of the Supreme Court as an unbiased tribunal, will insist that justice be done.
A series of checks and balances, which prevent the selfish interests of either individuals or groups from exercising their will to the injustice of another, is provided by the Constitution.
BTTT
Typically, dispite his self touted 'debating' prowess, paulsen cannot refute Constitutional facts.
I never attempted to do such a thing. It was assumed by everyone (but you) that the decisions reached by the legislators under "majority rules" were in line with the U.S. Constitution.
"Knowing that a democracy is a government of men in which the tyranny of the majority rules, America's Founding Fathers wisely created a republic - a government ruled by law."
+++++++
paulsen replied:
Granted, we're not a "true" or a "pure" democracy, but decisions are made by our elected representatives in a democratic fashion (ie., majority rules).
Not true paulsen, -- you cannot refute that our Constitution 'rules' over any attempt by a majority to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; --- no matter how hard you try.
[and you try every day]
I never attempted to do such a thing. It was assumed by everyone (but you) that the decisions reached by the legislators under "majority rules" were in line with the U.S. Constitution.
Bull. You replied to 'Sweetjustusnow', who made no such assumption. -- And in fact, -- most of the conservatives on FR make no such assumption.
Dream on that 'majority rule' is "in line" with overruling due process of Constitutional law.
Nothing in the document itself supports your position.
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.