Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mdittmar

This is crazy talk. We live in a democracy and the people elect their representatives. The Dems won the last election, so you can't say it's treason for them to try to implement their policies. When the Pubbies win Congress back, they can implement their policies.


14 posted on 03/14/2007 4:19:34 PM PDT by mngran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mngran
This is crazy talk. We live in a democracy and the people elect their representatives. The Dems won the last election, so you can't say it's treason for them to try to implement their policies. When the Pubbies win Congress back, they can implement their policies.

mngran

Since Dec 4, 2006

*************

IBTZ

15 posted on 03/14/2007 4:23:13 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: mngran
We live in a democracy...so you can't say it's treason for them to try to implement their policies

I can say TREASON any time I want,TREASON ,TREASON,TREASON;)

By the way,we live in a Constitutional Republic;)

23 posted on 03/14/2007 5:02:06 PM PDT by mdittmar (May God watch over those who serve,and have served, to keep us free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: mngran

We most certainly are NOT a democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. The word democracy does is not anywhere written in our Constitution. Go check for yourself. Our forefathers DID NOT WANT the US to be a democracy. Gosh, I hate it when people constantly say we are a democracy. Democracy is mob rule!


25 posted on 03/14/2007 8:23:26 PM PDT by panthermom (DUNCAN HUNTER 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: mngran





Republic v. Democracy

by David Barton

We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy.1 Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.2 James Madison

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.3 John Adams

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.4 The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.5 Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment

We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.6 Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.7 John Quincy Adams

A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.8 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.9 Noah Webster

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.10 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.11 Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text

Many Americans today seem to be unable to define the difference between the two, but there is a difference, a big difference. That difference rests in the source of authority.

A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a "mobocracy" 12); a republic is rule by law. If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster:

[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.13

The transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic. Consider the stability this provides: in our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. however, in a democracy, if majority of the people decide that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.

America's immutable principles of right and wrong were not based on the rapidly fluctuating feelings and emotions of the people but rather on what Montesquieu identified as the "principles that do not change."14 Benjamin Rush similarly observed:

[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.15

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.

A republic is the highest form of government devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human care and maintenance. If neglected, it can deteriorate into a variety of lesser forms, including a democracy (a government conducted by popular feeling); anarchy (a system in which each person determines his own rules and standards); oligarchy (a government run by a small council or a group of elite individuals): or dictatorship (a government run by a single individual). As John Adams explained:

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.20

Understanding the foundation of the American republic is a vital key toward protecting it.


26 posted on 03/14/2007 8:29:59 PM PDT by panthermom (DUNCAN HUNTER 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: mngran
I have no quarrel with your position.

You may like this Washington Post editorial. They rip into Pelosie. : )

The Pelosi Plan for Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201198.html?nav=rss_opinion

I think micromanaging the war is unconstitutional. Congress can defund the war in Iraq but they cannot not micromanage the war.
29 posted on 03/14/2007 8:43:35 PM PDT by Chgogal (Vote Al Qaeda. Vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: mngran

"This is crazy talk. We live in a democracy and the people elect their representatives. The Dems won the last election, so you can't say it's treason for them to try to implement their policies. When the Pubbies win Congress back, they can implement their policies."

Treason is treason regardless of who wins elections. Advocating and working toward making us lose a war is always, without exception, treason and no election can change that.

All the election does is mark the success of the treason. It is no different than opening the gates to the beseiging enemy. Just because surrender is popular does not make it right.


38 posted on 03/15/2007 8:56:58 AM PDT by Jim Verdolini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: mngran

>>>The Dems won the last election, so you can't say it's treason for them to try to implement their policies.<<<

The Constitution reads, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Until that statement is changed by a lawful Amendment to the Constitution, no election result, nor any legislation, can lawfully alter its definition. Many on the left could be tried for treason (but that would require the President to defend the Constitution).


45 posted on 03/25/2007 8:08:12 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau (God deliver our nation from the disease of liberalism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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