I am of the opinion and the understanding this government of our nation was established as a republic. A republic is vastly different than a democratic government. A republic is a government which the people elect the people who are best qualified among themselves and let those people administer the government under the watchful eyes of the people.
Representatives are elected by the People in state legislators. Senators were elected by local state governments. This procedure let the local governments have a direct link to the government though the People of any given state. In 1913 the people adopted the 17th amendment, which election allowed direct election of the senators by the people. The people thought this was proper procedure and would allow them to vote and have their vote count. What really happened was they lost the constitutional device designed to enable the states to protect themselves against governmental encroachment. This led to a democracy system; a government controlled system elected by the majority of votes of the people.
In a republic the decisions are made by the elected representatives, although it is expected that the people will keep in close contact with their elected representatives, both to be sure that they function honorably and that they know the peoples thinking. A democracy disguises itself as a republic by stealth, indicating they vote the peoples will; but they vote on party lines not to disagree themselves or loose favor with their colleagues of the same party. If a senator did not what the state wanted for that state he could be replaced with someone who would uphold the state and the people of that states mandates.
The framers of the constitution were opposed to parties because of the strength of party lines and possible corruption of the system of government could undermine the Constitution. Democracy stimulates the two party system and sounds like the most desirable form of government and its adoption would solve human problems. However the framers did not share this point of view. James Madison had this to say concerning the attitude expressed by some that a complete democracy is desirable form of government.
“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Madison disagreed with those “theoretic politicians” who favored complete democracy. His attitude toward a complete democracy was that:
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security and or the rights of property.”
The framers often said that their objections to democracy was based on the fact that the country was going to spread out and it was not practical for people to come together to pass their own laws. And that this problem was solved by establishing a representative’s democracy in which the people chose their representatives to meet and pass laws for them. However, the real reason the Framers were opposed to democracy was not the impracticality of the people coming together and passing their own laws. Instead, their opposition to democracy was based on human nature itself. They felt that the people would be too easily swayed by passion, prejudice, and self interest, and too easily deceived by demagogues. In this day and age with electronics and television there is no problem with the people getting together. Human nature will always play a part in life but not allowing people to take part in government has limited the people the right to know what is wrong and knowledge how to repair their government.
As I read and study the Framers intent for the Constitution as drafted and adopted or ratified, the constitution is a limited government not the gigantic government Americans are living with today. The Idea of Flexibility of the Constitution is not consistent with the Framers intent. “Flexibility, today means changing the constitution to meet modern demands. This is done today not by basic principles and limitations under which a government is limited; but by amendment procedures which are not limited by deliberation of the people and acceptance by three fourths of the states. Instead they are accepted or rejected by five out of nine judges who are not elected by the people and are not accountable to them. If the principles and limitations of the constitution themselves are flexible and are only what the Supreme Court thinks they should be at any given time, then there are no fixed principles and limitations and the federal government can do anything the Supreme Court is willing to permit. This doctrine violates the basic the constitutional concept of separation of powers.” George Washington expressed his warning against changes to the constitution other than regular amendment procedure.
“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitution powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is customary weapon by which free government are destroyed.”
Many of the sweeping changes to the constitution have been by the Supreme Court in its decisions of cases before it. In the Legislative reapportionment cases for example, prior enactments by Congress and the states were in harmony with the words of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers. Yet, the Supreme Court, on its own, with no prior legislation in the direction it chose to go, changed the Constitution and overruled the repeatedly considered judgment of Congress. This fourteenth amendment view of the equal rights and Protection Clause to protect from discrimination by government agencies based on population and race was adopted by the Supreme Court to apply to every person’s vote. This would allow every person’s vote would carry the same weight.
Judge Harlan in his dissenting opinion made the following comment.
“The Court’s action now brings them within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment, amounts to nothing less than an exercise of amending power by this Court.”
The responsibility of the Supreme Court is to protect the Constitution as clearly as a policeman is to protect the public and maintain order. The violations of the Supreme Court, to make law and not protect the Constitution, are violating the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court has violated the Constitution to protect it by usurping power of the legislators and changing the Constitution by unlawful interpretation and changes. The Supreme Court has decided cases on the principles contrary of the Constitution and of the Framers intent and the understanding of the people who ratified the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson repeated fear what could destroy the Constitution.
“It has been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression, the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow) working like gravity by day and by night, gaining a little too-day and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until it shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because when government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as centre of power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become a venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
The Framers of the Constitution so stipulated that no Governmental body have power or control by any single one group. This separation of powers is outlined by the Constitution, Article I. Legislative Branch; Article II-Executive Branch; Article III- The Judicial Branch, of which checks and balances were constituted, to give powers to control the government against usurpation.
Congress is also to blame for their lack of action regarding their responsibilities as pertaining to the specific constitutional provisions required of them to check the usurpations of the Supreme Court by the following provisions:
“In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both in law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
This is clear and powerful. We as a people too must be responsible for the blame. James Madison made this clear:
“No theoretical check, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but the people who are to choose them.”
We are the people and must be vigilant of our leaders, study the Constitution system of government from authentic studies and demand changes. We must demand changes of leadership to correct the damage and tampering of our sacred system of government.
Don’t make fun of the Tea Party because they are trying to bring around some very good changes.
Jerome Horowitz Book on the Constitution.
President and Men 1914. The Constitution of, the United States Of America.
Much of what I write is thoughts and ideas of others but I agree with them entirely and hope this will catch on and an honest change will occur. Words can be mightier than bullets.
No one can harm the man who does himself no wrong.