1 vote

Can a republic be prevented from turning into an unrestrained democracy?

It doesn't look like it could.

Why? Simply because the republic permits the elected representatives the democratic power to alter its underlying constitution.

With that power...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No King but King Jesus

The Republic will last only as long as Jesus Christ and His Law are sovergein.

Culture is Religion externalized.

The Republic is alive and

The Republic is alive and well, except most of the seats are vacant. What we have today is a private foreign corporation, which is now owned by the IMF, in control that we ingnorantly contract with daily, starting with the Social Security created trust when we use it's number.

Please read these in order so you can follow the subsequent links.

Here you can learn how, when and why the corporaton was formed and how the United States of America lost control of it: http://teamlaw.org/histor....

This Act and it's subsequent amendments further established the government for the district of Columbia in 1801 which Congress was given total authority over in the Constitution of the United States Article 1, Section 8. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi...

Here is a link to the orignal Titles of Nobility Amendment, otherwise known as the 13th Amendment: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi... and when Viriginia gave it the final ratifying vote they published the new Amendment in Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Here are some links to the first publication of the new Amendment, granted they are images from a third party source, as I have not been able to make it to an archive or law library to chekc this:

http://www.amendment-13.o...
http://www.amendment-13.o...
http://www.amendment-13.o...
http://www.amendment-13.o...

It was important for the newly formed corporation to not adopt this amendment as it would limit their abilities in redistributing the property of the south after the Civil War.

Then, in 1871 Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act http://memory.loc.gov/cgi.... The district already had it's organic (or organizational) Act back in 1801. If they were simply re-organizing, they would have simply amended the original act like they had done previously.

Between 1962 and 1969 all the states had re-organized as private sub-corporations of Corp. U.S. Here in New Jersey the Governor consolidates all the departments, due to the "changing times," to fall under his authority. http://lawlibrary.rutgers... This isn't in compliance with the procedures set forth in our original jurisdiction government state's Constitution. If they were changing the procedures of the original jurisdiction state, rather than forming a private corporation, they would have merely amended the state Constitution in the proper fashion set forth in said Constitution.

Finally, get involved in your states orignal jurisdiction elections: http://teamlaw.org/Govern...

And, if you have questions visit their forum and ask them: http://teamlaw.org/Forum....

The Power to Tax...

...is the power to destroy.

Once the government gave themselves that right - in practice (despite other interpretations being offered here) by Constitutional Amendment, most other freedoms seem to have gone by the wayside. Now, the gubment has the guns AND the money. That's a tough combo to take on.

Part

of the responsibility of "freedom" is that anyone may have the freedom to be irreparably stupid. And suffer the consequences of stupidity.
This is why people try to stress that knowledge and responsibility must accompany freedom.

OK

but why does the State have the power to bind me to the stupidity of others?
Isn't that collectivism at its worst what your proposing?

I fail to see any "proposing" in my above statement.

What "proposing" are you referring to?

Poor choice of words!

Sorry, that should have be 'implying.'

Ok

If you are referring to a nature of a governing body which binds you to something, that is an entirely different matter..

ANY governing body, no matter what it is, has some "collectivist" baggage, otherwise it's not a "governing body".
Government, by its very nature, embodies collectivism. Different gov'ts vary, but it's only a matter of degree.
If you'd prefer anarchy, I'm not opposed to that, but then we don't need to discuss anything about gov't except to ensure that it doesn't exist.

There are ways to mostly escape, and I've considered them. Such as homesteading in a remote section of Alaska, where they simply don't have the manpower to mess with you as long as you remain "off the radar" for them.
However, any country you live in will "bind you" to some collectivism in some way or other, regardless of whether you like it or not.
So, that is strictly a theorectical concept, actually.
But, it is interesting to think about the theory.

To return to the original topic somewhat, I think that being smart and responsible, regarding any movement in gov't, to help ensure that our freedoms are not sent flapping in the wind, will behoove us in matters of "collectivist government bodies" in which we have limited voice individually. Each individual "watches out" for each other individual this way, to help ensure that the "collectivist gov't" does not encroach any further than originally intended in whatever "compact" was made to create it.
Stupidity and ignorance allows usurpers a foothold. So, whether individually or collectively, preserving freedom depends on being smart and responsible..

Secession + the nature of the republic

a) Makes me wonder why those bright founding fathers didn't put something in the Constitution allowing the individual to secede.

However, just having it in the Constitution is flimsy as 200 years of experience has demonstrated...

b) But isn't the nature of the republic flimsy? I mean, it can only be maintained if the elected representatives (i) properly interpret its constitution and secondly (ii) adhere to it.

Isn't that a huge assumption that this form of gov't rests on? I mean look what has happened...

I think

that the founding fathers did do that. They created a gov't with very limited scope, and very strong boundaries for gov't power.

It was the things created later, such as the 14th amendment, which destroyed it.
So, I don't think it is fair for the founding fathers to be branded with the results of corruption from later years.

Although to us presently, it makes little difference, other than a historical debate, because we are now bound in chains by the previous and current corrupt regimes which came primarily beginning with the Civil War era.

The "flimsy" part is not really so "flimsy" because it rests with the people to ensure that they are not downtrodden.
The people have failed in their vigilance, and accepted the results of this corruption, for various reasons(and perhaps fear), and now we are where we are.

I disagree. I think republican gov't is based on...

unreasonable assumptions. Expecting these below items of the majority of people is a historically awful assumption:

i) properly understanding the constitution
ii) agreeing with it's ideology
iii) vigilantly defending it

true but the constitution

true but the constitution says that it is the right and duty of the people to abolish any form of government when it gets out of control ... people can use bad advice and interpret this incorrectly and say lets abolish government ... which means abolish constitution and rewrite one

people are rediculous and so is democracy ... thats why we were intended to live in a republic

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

The Constitution

says nothing of the sort. That is written within the Declaration of Independence.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

The citizens can't alter the

Constitution. It was written to be self-protecting FROM the citizens. Imagine if the Constitution could be changed by majority vote of citizens. That would be a disaster. That would be an "unrestrained democracy."

But isn't that what we almost have now?

True. You are correct about citizens. They can only amend it indirectly.

The proper issue here is that the Constitution is not self-protecting from the elected representatives.

INote: I've made an edit to the thread post to reflecting this.

I don't think so

To make a change to the Constitution, Congress has to have a 2/3 majority, and then 3/4 of the states have to agree. It can be done but it's a pretty Herculean task. Note also that the citizens are prevented from voting for Supreme Court justices. This is precisely to prevent the citizenry from having much power to change things.

THE FEDRAL RESERVE

PASSED WITH OUT BEING RATIFIED. The 16th amendment was put into place. You are here to hide the truth. Once again you are not getting paid enough to do what you are doing I would ask for a raise if I were you Billydee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Unit...

Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/

Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Take off the tinfoil hat

"getting paid"...LOL

Watch out! There's paid secret agents here!

Take off the tinfoil hat, buddy.

True. Amending it is very difficult

However, for the past two hundred years the elected representatives haven't even bothered with that supposed republican safeguard!

Is that not a huge flaw in the republican gov't to assume that the elected representatives will follow its constitution?

Following the Constitution is another matter

If all three branches of government ignore it, there's a problem. At least the Surpreme Court generally abides by the Constitution, but they're human and perfection can't be expected.

But no Constitution is going to be perfect. It could have been written better to prevent so much government intervention, but I think there's always going to be slippage.

It's interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution should only apply to a single generation. He said: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." (He came up with nineteen years on life expectancy tables). So, with that reasoning, it's good that there are means to change it.

Wow. Jefferson...

That man was so ahead of his time!

I guess you could say that Lysander Spooner carried on Jefferson's thinking with his book No Treason: The Constitution of no Authority.

I've noticed the similarity with Spooner too

Essentially what he believed was that, ideally, there should be a revolution every generation so that no one is bound by anything contracts or obligations of previous generations.