Guarantee of a republican form of government

. ^ | 2/4/03 | Marcia H. Armstrong

[tpaine]

Conventional wisdom has insisted that republics must be small, to avoid a descent into tyranny and oppression.
But small republics quarrel, and cannot always defend their independence. -- By uniting, small republics, states, can protect themselves against aggression, but also against internal subversion or corruption.

This was the intention of the United States Constitution, which guarantees every state in the Union a "republican form of government" (USC 1787, Article IV, Section 4). This united republic of the United States provides a republican model for solving the dilemma of democratic intolerance, that of majority rule.
Our constitution leaves local culture and development to the self-determination of states or localities, while putting certain individual rights under the protection of an over-arching republican constitution , to prevent the tyranny of local majorities.

Thus our founders theory, that our U.S. Constitution would locate rights-protecting basic law at the federal level, while leaving culture-promoting activities to be locally determined, and reasonably regulated.
This reinforces the basic purposes of republican government by preventing the excesses of popular sovereignty, while ensuring that local sovereignty remains the best test of justice, and private perceptions of the common good.

[tpaine]

EternalVigilance:
Would even one of the Founders, much less all of them assembled in Congress, have approved of any sort of pornography as being covered under the First Amendment to the Constitution?
-ev-


Then, as now, the founders, in the 10th, delegated such power, - IE, - as that over the commercial & public aspects of sexuality, - was to be left up to state/local standards & ~reasonable~ controls, ---- under a guaranteed republican form of government in the states, - subject to the supreme law of the land, our U.S. Constitution.

-- Thus, 'porno' laws/regulations can be enacted which do not violate our other inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property.

Simple republican concept really. To bad many here at FR have such problems understanding it.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

They have probably been listening to NPR too much. Every other guest "expert" they have uses the word "democracy" like most people use "like." (D'ohhh!)

[sheltonmac]

...preventing the excesses of popular sovereignty, while ensuring that local sovereignty remains the best test of justice, and private perceptions of the common good.

If this is indeed the heart of a true republic, then the republic envisioned by our forefathers, to all intents and purposes, died on April 9, 1865.

[tpaine]

"...preventing the excesses of popular sovereignty, while ensuring that local sovereignty remains the best test of justice, and private perceptions of the common good."




If this is indeed the heart of a true republic, then the republic envisioned by our forefathers, to all intents and purposes, died on April 9, 1865.
-mac-


Would you grant that the southern states were exceeding 'popular sovereignty' in ~any~ way by secession?
- IE, were the property rights & liberties of their citizens who did not want to secede being violated?

[KC Burke]

The article and your post at number 1 are dead-on-target.

[tpaine]

The Violence that begot Violence
http://Lew Rockwell.com ^ | January 31, 2003 | Lew Rockwell
Posted on 01/31/2003 7:02 AM PST by satyam
The Violence That Begat Violence by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


"The President, a Republican no less, seems to believe that government should be telling us what kind of car to drive, what kind of education our kids should receive, how to cure disease in Africa and the Caribbean, how to liberate women the world over, how to fund technological innovation, and even how to "transform" our "souls" and lift the "hopes of all mankind"


Should our president, under a 'republican form of goverment' be telling us the above?
-- We seem to agree neither he, nor the state, -- should have that power, -- which is the point of this thread.

Yet you seem to want the southern states to have this type of power back before the civil war. - Can you exlain?

[tpaine]

Thank you.

The catch 22 being that most 'conservatives' here won't even ~try~ to understand the point.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The last time that invoking Article 4, Section 4 was considered was during the Civil War, when many Republicans urged President Lincoln to declare that all government officials of Confederate states were fired (never happened). Many also urged Congress to pass a law declaring rebel state governments and borders dissolved (for having dissolved themselves by violating Article 4, Section 4) and to establish a federal Territory of the South. That way, setting up Reconstructed state government could be done as easily as was being done in the western territories. See www.republicanbasics.com.

[american spirit]

Good post....in my mind the debate between republic vs. democracy boils down to the issue of rights. Our founding fathers envisioned a republic where one's rights are granted by God Almighty and are UNALIENABLE. Their intent was to make sure the rights of Americans are UN-A-LIEN-ABLE which meant the rights of the people could never be threatened or garnished by a fedgov with questionable motives. Our problem is that we've morphed into a "democracy" that has essentially altered our rights and made them into CIVIL RIGHTS...which are basically granted and controlled by gov't. Anyone with some historical knowledge should be able to see the big difference between these two sets of rights.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Here is where I support some activism among judges. It is obvious by this clause that the occupation of elected offices by members of the Democrat Party is unconstitutional.

[snarkpup]

Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Constitutional republic: The sheep is armed.

[sheltonmac]

In a republic, there will always be those who are compelled to go along with the majority in certain situations. For example, I didn't vote for George W. Bush, but I am forced to recognize him as president of the United States. The same goes for politics at the local level. Those of us who voted against a proposed public school referendum will have our property taxes raised along with those who did vote for that increase.

In the case of secession, the majority of representatives in certain states decided to withdraw from the Union. Of course, such an action would most definitely have had an impact on those who wished to remain, but when it comes to our nation as a "republic," the founders deemed that the various states would comprise that republic. Therefore, each state should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not it would like to continue being part of a monolithic union.

I certainly don't think there is a perfect form of government, but what we have now is essentially one, big nation. State borders are nothing more than lines on a map as far as the federal government is concerned.

[sheltonmac]

"Should our president, under a 'republican form of goverment' be telling us the above? -- We seem to agree neither he, nor the state, -- should have that power, -- which is the point of this thread.

Yet you seem to want the southern states to have this type of power back before the civil war."

I don't think the state should have that power, but the framers of the Constitution did believe that there were certain powers denied to the federal government that could be exercised by the states. Truth be told, I think the Confederacy violated many of the very principles it claimed to be defending.

[tpaine]

Many also urged Congress to pass a law declaring rebel state governments and borders dissolved (for having dissolved themselves by violating Article 4, Section 4)
Thanks, - thats an excellent point. - They dissolved their own rights to be treated as republics.

[tpaine]

Thanks & regards.

[tpaine]

I certainly don't think there is a perfect form of government, but what we have now is essentially one, big nation. State borders are nothing more than lines on a map as far as the federal government is concerned.
13 -mac-

And this is a failure of our political system, not one of the constitution.
-- If a state rebeled peacefully, using the courts & civil disobedience to refuse to acknowlege unconstututional federal law, it could ultimately win in the ~real~ court. The court of public opinion.
The more oppressive the feds grew, the more support the state would get from ~all~ the people.

[philman_36]

...but when it comes to our nation as a "republic," the founders deemed that the various states would comprise that republic.
The various States, each being a seperate republic, compromise a union, or confederacy if you will, of republics.

[tpaine]

"The various States, each being a seperate republic, compromise a union, or confederacy if you will, of republics."


Exactly. - The key to the union being, -- the states agreement that the U.S. Constitution is to be the supreme 'law of the land', -- as it applies to our basic individual inalienable rights. [Art. VI]

Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
-- This type of law violates any number of the constitutional safeguards of our BOR's.

As we see in CA, 'evil' guns are being regulated out of the hands of law abiding citizens, using this type of statist thinking.

[philman_36]

A very great misperception. I don't know how anyone can view things in the manner in which sheltonmac did.
sheltonmac, do you understand the difference now?