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

To: Whilom
Why do you insist on saying we live in a 'representive democracy'? You seem to be ignoring the fact that our government is guaranteed by the constitution to be republican in form. -- And that the rule of constitutional law overrules the will of the majority.

Because we do live in a representative democracy; that's the framework the Constitution provides -- we elect representatives and they act, accountable to us. Constitutional law is indeed the law of the land.
But when there are disputes about the meaning of the Constitution, how are those disputes decided? Not by an individual. Not by a self-selecting person or group of "superior intelligence." Instead, by the political and judicial framework provided by the Constitution. As they should be.

As you well know this 'framework' has been corrupted by many federal violations & the same at state/local levels. Our political dual party socialism by majority rule is at the base of these constitutional 'disputes'.

Therefore, if an individual proclaims that he is an "individualist" hewing to the "objectivist" philosophy and that he will decide for himself what provisions of the Constitution mean, he probably can proclaim all he wants, but if he acts on that, flouting the established law, he's likely to be apprehended and punished. That's all I meant.

Indeed, you 'meant' to support our current political 'business as usual'.
You seem to deny there is anything wrong with the massive errosions of individual liberty we have suffered in the last century. Can you say this isn't so?

497 posted on 10/06/2002 2:12:14 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
Indeed, you 'meant' to support our current political 'business as usual'. You seem to deny there is anything wrong with the massive errosions of individual liberty we have suffered in the last century. Can you say this isn't so?

Telling me once again what I meant. This is precisely why the rest of us won't let self-selected "individualist-objectivists" decide what the Constitution means. And yes I do deny "massive erosions of individual liberty...in the last century." Unless, of course, you consider it your individual liberty to produce, transport, sell, and consume illegal drugs. Otherwise, the record is spotty, some cause for cheer, some for concern. I would say that the greatest cause for cheer and the greatest cause for alarm in the past century both occurred in our political liberties. In that span, women and Blacks secured the right to vote. On the other hand, the concentration of money in the federal government's hands threatens to overwhelm states, counties, and municipalities. Conservatives welcome help from individualist-objectivists to work with us through the legal process established by the Constitution to stem then reverse that tide.

522 posted on 10/09/2002 8:29:48 AM PDT by Whilom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | 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