Posted on 02/23/2007 4:06:53 AM PST by don-o
While that may or may not be true, it brought to my mind our founding principles. I found a short, concise essay, from which I snipped a short exerpt.
Comments? Does it even matter any more?
Your comments? I assume you did not name this place "Free Democracy" for a reason.
It mattetrs a lot and this is a very good point to be making these days in which everyone is copying each other's mistakes.
Hear this, all Muslims and Musliphiles: The United States of America is a Christian Nation, founded on the Bible, the Word Of the true and the living God. If you don't like this, you may go to any other country you like, except Australia.
The problem is entirely with the changing structure of the language. Today, a "republic" is a form of "democracy".
What the founders differentiated from a "republic" was what is now called a "direct democracy".
A common current definition of "democracy" is "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 elections"
Our republic most certainly fits that description... we are a democracy. It's the "directly" part that we don't have (and which the founders decried).
BTTT! Necessary reading for all FReepers...and the rest of the country, to boot!
.
The emphasis on opinion polls feeds the misconception that we should be ruled by what the majority decides on any issue.
Great article!
Here are some excerpts:
In the American republic, the "principles which did not change" and which were "certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community" were the principles of Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For example, Blackstone's Commentaries explained:
To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.16
The Founders echoed that theme:
All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.17 James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice
[T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.18 Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution
[T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control.19 Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution
The Founders understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the republic and that the republic would be destroyed if the people's knowledge of those values should ever be lost.
I like Wallbuilders and David Barton. I especially like this video:
America's Godly Heritage
http://www.wallbuilders.com/store/product147.html
They aren't trying to "abolish" the electoral college... just get rid of the aspect of it that benefited smaller states (and thus it will never happen)... but that doesn't impact whether or not we would be a "republic".
State legislatures once chose Senators... now it's by direct election. The difference between a republic and a democracy doesn't depend on whether the representatives are selected by direct vote or not... it depends on whether the representatives wield power or whether the population at large makes decisions by majority vote.
Now... a real example of that would be the growing number of "ballot initiatives" and the like that appear each year. The bond referendums etc.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
So few people understand that America is a republic and not a democracy and what the difference really is.
The article is condescending.
it matters to a few--many of them military vets,but the forces that control the classroom--and the government
have "evolved" into a form of despotism that would have
shocked and repulsed our founders.When we began to choose
as our leaders men who did not rule in fear of God--as
Noah Webster taught necessary we opened the door a crack--
when we ignored the corrupted court in its game of legitimizing the shedding of innocent blood called abortion- we ceased to deserve any right a future as Americans.Indeed I tremble for my Country ,as did T.J.
I'm not following you. If the election is decided by popular vote, doesn't that remove the republican factor? The electoral college is the intermediate structure that serves to balance the power of large and small states.
Good post!
How so? Please elaborate.
bump
Not at all. The dividing line isn't over how representatives are chosen, but on how legislation is enacted. The "people" exercise power indirectly in a republic. They elect people and those people exercise power.
The electoral college is the intermediate structure that serves to balance the power of large and small states.
One of them, certainly (the Senate counts of course). But the states were given free reign in how they wanted to apportion those electors... and not every state has to do it the same way (indeed... some don't).
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
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.