A Republic, Not a Democracy
Rep. Ron Paul |
At these conventions, leaders determined, or pretended to determine, who they wished to govern the nation for the next four years amidst inevitable, endless exaltations of democracy. Yet we are not a democracy. In fact, the founding fathers found the concept of democracy very dangerous.
Democracy is majority rule at the expense of the minority. Our system has certain democratic elements, but the founders never mentioned democracy in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. In fact, our most important protections are decidedly undemocratic. For example, the First Amendment protects free speech. It doesn't - or shouldn't - matter if that speech is abhorrent to 51% or even 99% of the people. Speech is not subject to majority approval. Under our republican form of government, the individual, the smallest of minorities, is protected from the mob.
Sadly, the constitution and its protections are respected less and less as we have quietly allowed our constitutional republic to devolve into a militarist, corporatist social democracy. Laws are broken, quietly changed and ignored when inconvenient to those in power, while others in positions to check and balance do nothing. The protections the founders put in place are more and more just an illusion.
This is why increasing importance is placed on the beliefs and views of the president. The very narrow limitations on government power are clearly laid out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Nowhere is there any reference to being able to force Americans to buy health insurance or face a tax/penalty, for example. Yet this power has been claimed by the executive and astonishingly affirmed by Congress and the Supreme Court. Because we are a constitutional republic, the mere popularity of a policy should not matter. If it is in clear violation of the limits of government and the people still want it, a Constitutional amendment is the only appropriate way to proceed.
However, rather than going through this arduous process, the Constitution was in effect, ignored and the insurance mandate was allowed anyway.
This demonstrates how there is now a great deal of unhindered flexibility in the Oval Office to impose personal views and preferences on the country, so long as 51% of the people can be convinced to vote a certain way. The other 49% on the other hand have much to be angry about and protest under this system.
We should not tolerate the fact that we have become a nation ruled by men, their whims and the mood of the day, and not laws. It cannot be emphasized enough that we are a republic, not a democracy and, as such, we should insist that the framework of the Constitution be respected and boundaries set by law are not crossed by our leaders. These legal limitations on government assure that other men do not impose their will over the individual, rather, the individual is able to govern himself. When government is restrained, liberty thrives.
Tags: Republic, Not a Democracy, Unites States, Ron Paul To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
2 Comments:
Bill, I wonder then why it is that the Republican party has embraced the man who's mandatory health care requirement in his own state has been chosen as our next candidate for President, when there was a clear Constitutional choice for Presidential Nominee. Why anyone would think that the man who made "universal health care" mandatory in his own state when he was governor will dismantle the universal health care put in place by the currect administration will be any different? The duplicty is so evident it boggles my mind. Why did the Republican party push away a true Constitutionalist leading up to the Convention and all during the primaries? Vote fraud was rampant in our own primaries and caucuses. People followed the Party rules, and then were thrown out on their ear. Where's the high moral ground? There really is none for the Party to stand on anymore. The truth is, the Republicans in the high up places really don't want a Constitutional form of government. They want a Corporate state of the corporation, run for the corporation, and by the corporation. And who better to run the "corporation" than a business owner who will liquidate everything that looks like it will improve the bottom line, even if it means liquidating people and infrastructure in one way or another? No one seems to look further than the end of the nose on their faces.
Elaine, Thank you for your comment. All good points.
While I share and post many of Ron Paul's excellent ideas and comments, the fact is he could NOT win and conservatives needed a candidate that will win and replace the current incumbent in the White House.
Patton was a great combat general but he was no Eisenhower when it came to coordinating a united effort as Supreme Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe.
Unfortunately, Paul rhetoric does not also agree with his voting record. He does have a Lifetime Score 83% (2005-2010) for conservative voting but based on his rhetoric, one would expect this percentage to be higher. There are other conservatives with higher scores. Also, Ron Paul missed too many votes in 2011-2012 to even be rated for these year.
Now his son - Sen. Dr. Rand Paul (R-KY) has a Lifetime score 97% (2011-2012). In 2012 100% for voting conservative.
Sen. Jim W. DeMint (R-SC) - Lifetime score 98% (2005-2012) with 6 Years including the last three years rated at 100%.
Post a Comment
<< Home