In a Republic, the political power is vested in the hands of Representatives, while in a straight Democracy, the political power is vested in the hands of the ignorant and uniformed masses.
In a democracy, political decisions are determined by the will of the majority, while in a republic, the people are governed by the rule of law.
In a republic people have rights and responsibilities, while in aa democracy people in certain groups are granted privileges and immunities.
In a republic, the rights of the individual are secure, while in a democracy, the people only have privileges that can given and/or taken away.
In a republic, the people own their property, while in a democracy the bankers own virtually everything.
In a republic, the people are individually responsible to take care of themselves, while in a democracy, the government is responsible to provide indiviudals with the necessities of life.
In a democracy, the people are governed by an oligarchy of rich and powerful bankers, bankers, lawyers and Wall Street corporations, while in a republic, the people are governed by the laws of nature and nature's God.
In a republic, the people get to keep the fruits of their own labor, while in a democracy, the wealth of the productive must be shared with the least productive members of society.
In a republic, the representatives elected by the people serve the people who elected them, while in a democracy, the representatives of the people serve those who fund their elections.
In a republic, the rights of the indivudual are protected by the rule of law, while in a democracy, the individuals must make sacrifices for the greater good.
In a republic, the people are governed by Natural Law, while in a democracy, the people are governmed by the law of the jungle.
Yes, a democracy will fail, and it will likely happen sooner, rather than later. This discussion headline is no doubt accurate in saying that the downward path runs through socialism. As a case in point, read the well-written article on Venezuela which can be found in the August, 1976, issue of National Geographic. The country was, at that time, the richest and most promising nation in Latin America. Serious students on this topic should obtain a copy of the article, read it, and begin showing it to young people. It will be well-received; whereas, verbal assertions and hand-waving almost surely do more harm than good.
Lewis E. Bishop, Jr., thank you for pointing out the Nat-Geo article. I suspect it will provide interesting reading, though we might do well to be mindful that it expresses only the opinion of an outside observer, unless the author draws from firsthand personal knowledge as a Venezuelan governmental official whose utterances by the words of the subject article represent that which he observed occurring within that government, a government WHICH IS NOT A democracy, but expressed as a REPUBLIC. If, by chance, you are concluding Venezuela's governmental as a founded Democracy, or that of the United States of America as a founded Democracy, such a claim is not supported by the Constitutions of those nations. Those interested may observe the text of those Constitutions as availed by these links:
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Venezuela_2009?lang=en, a CONSTIUTION, and, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_Ame... , a “Constitution”.
Note please that the word ‘democracy’ does not appear in the Constitution for the United States of America, hence any suggestion that the government it expresses has anything to do with expressing a democracy is patently false and misleading. And too, note that although the Venezuelan Constitution also speaks of ‘democracy’ is does not label the government expressed thereby as anything other than a Republic. Therefore those seeking to color them as democracies, as if a foregone conclusion and then hold them to judgment under the light and objective of democracy does no useful work except to deceive himself and those who believe his words. No doubt, “something stinks in Denmark” relative to that which appears as societal malaise blamed on ‘the government’ or some of them, but the stench DOES NOT come from the appropriate exercise of Constitutional Power in relation to the free people whom are citizens of the lands over which those governments have and exercise constitutionally delegated power. At work is either tyranny, disguised as government authority OR, and more likely, a populace which subjugated its rights to a power within that government to which they had no obligation to submit. In that case, they are getting just what they signed up for, and it has not a thing to do with the selected scapegoat . . . “Democracy” . . . for none exists within those realms ( Venezuela & United States of America ).
Key Holder, I liked your reply pointing out that neither the USA nor Venezuela is a Democracy. BUT, that is precisely my point. For decades now the talking heads of our country have been calling "free countries" democracies and extolling attempts to "export" democracy to other countries. The result is that most of our young folks believe the USA is a democracy, and many of them are angry that we don't function closer to true democracy--as in Hillary drawing more votes than Trump, but not getting to be President. This is serious. To save this nation from "Venezuela syndrome" we must educate people to BELIEVE that, while "we the people" are to elect our representatives to the US House, we are NOT to participate in getting a President and Vice President. To have a popularity contest and "elect" such charismatic, narcissistic, glory seekers as we can and do get nowadays is a ticket to disaster. Read Article II and Amendment XII of the Constitution, and you will see that ELECTORS are to "nominate" persons, sealing the names in an envelope. Then the House "selects" a President from the top three names--simple--beautiful. Such a process would essentially eliminate the national divisiveness that everyone is concerned about. I'm concerned; the threat is dire. Let's talk about the insanity of how we get our President compared to what is written in our Constitution.
Regarding Lewis E. Bishop, Jr., post of apx 00:35 hrs on 11/13/2018.
If that is precisely your point, you did not say so in your post of Thurs. Nov 08.
It is a common behavioral modification mechanism for one or a group to offer a word to the people, which they then tend to use simply because it is something new, different or prominent. . . an idea to latch onto in response to the innate human drive to have what they have not. . . to have more within their grasp by which to define their otherwise poorly defined sense of purpose for existing. Once the word is offered, it acts as a manure wagon into which all sorts of shit can be pitched, hence the idea of the pitch man with his pitch, his offering; like the manure I am pitching now.The thinking man must sort out the ideas pitched or they shall burden his life. The problems is this, those who simply gobble up the manure usually end up with a belly ache. Those who analyze the manure and decide whether to let it sit and rot or, otherwise, put it to work fertilizing a plant( an idea) which can grow to provide beneficial fruits are likely to gain benefits from ideas rather than be passively ruled by them.
The government in its de jure functions is a republic. The United States (that so-named federal government of A1, S8, cl17) is a democracy and it imposes not on the rights of the people except to the degree that those of them elect to subjugate their rights to that operative scope of the general government. That most of the otherwise free Americans do actually subjugate their rights to their servant government has wide sweeping effects, as it rightly should for the fact that the people, for the most part have adopted that New Plantation to have dominant operative capacity over their rights and properties. Anybody who has subjugated their rights to their servant government, continuing to wave their substantive right to remove that impediment, are receiving all the effect of democracy that they signed up for and ought not complain but should rejoice that their government is treating them precisely like the voluntary servants they have offered themselves up as. Why do folks tell their government to treat them as occupants of the United States New Plantation and then bitch about being expected to sing the slave songs and pick the cotton ?
Getting caught up in the discussion about democracy and what other people think is unproductive, and the recognition of all that bullshit only serves to give it more apparent credence, more support of a destructive idea. Ideas exist because they are thought about. Maybe do your part and stop thinking about and reacting to that idea. Think of and act in representation of an other idea, maybe freedom and acting in the actual pursuit of it is where we all should be. Stop looking at other people's plates and complaining about what they are eating. Cook and eat your own dinner. How can another's values possibly affect you unless you choose to let them affect you ?
That some nation claims to be a democracy does not mean that it is not free. It is a form of freedom in which you are free to vote for whatever you vote for and do so under the recognition that is it a vote functioning within the framework of that democracy. However, we do not have a democracy in the United States of America, so, who gives a crap about democracies except to recognize and work against that tendency here?
Whatever the young folks believe, they believe. They, just as everyone else, are free to believe as they believe. Each of us is free to criticize the others, offer opinion in support or against, act in accord or in opposition or by indifference. The very basic function of rights is that we each may do whatever we care to so long as that act does not trespass on the rights of others. What is the big deal ? If there are some who believe that freedom of expression is divisive, they are damned well right; because divergence of belief is the esence of divisiveness. Divisiveness is a precept of freedom in a tolerant society wherein the people cannot be compelled to march in lock-step and shout "Sieg Heil" in unison. Commonality of thought is not a pre-requisite of the American model and, in particular, conformity of personal behavior to the ideas believed to flow from the governmental organism is not required either, regardless of the nature of that governmental organism.
The election of the President IS carried out by the electoral college method, by electors whom do choose from the two candidates which are presented as a result of the general vote. American voters do not vote for "OUR President" or "OUR leader" but do vote, indirectly, for the Chief Executive Officer of the government which is expressed and empowered by the terms set forth by and through the Constitution for the United States of America, which touches your life NOT except to the degree which you invite it to, the degree to which you subjugate your rights to its provided functional capacities.
Freedom is not a product of talk and stomping feet and shouting, "we are free". Freedom is the product of the manner by which we each individually express and safeguard our rights. It is the failure to safeguard individual rights which is the downfall of our nation, even beyond that, the people not only fail to safeguard, but do actively insult their substantive rights and incapacitate their ability to enjoy those rights by limiting them to an expression through prosthetic rights or privileges offered for their use as voluntary servants under the idea of the New Plantation. If you elect to place the constructive chains of servitude around your neck, do not act surprised or be enraged that the chain holder treats to as the servant to chose to represent yourself as. She might not BE a whore, but everything she does is whoring.
So, stop offering yourselves up to be the government's whore if you do not care to be screwed by it. Nobody is forcing anybody to have interaction with the United States federal government, except that they volunteer to.
To posit the idea that modifying the method by which the President of the United States is elected to office could have a material effect, or that it should have a material effect, on the degree of divisiveness which the people themselves are the source of, I think is not likely to be proven out by its implementation . . nor should it be. The people are free to adhere to ideas which tend to divide them in some interests, though no such ideas can possibly divide them in all interests, and what if they did? Even if the people are fully divided, it matters not, since each of them is of full rights to conduct their lives as they see fit without regard for another's feelings. Those who busy themselves attempting to rule another, only to be dissatisfied that their efforts are made without effect have unrealistic expectations.
There is no insanity in the method presently relied on to elect "our President" because he whom is elected is not OUR President. The President is a man who fills the Office of the Chief Executive of the Limited Liability Holding company named the "United States" which is a governmental organization operated independent of the peoples rights except for the delegated power which those whom act in representation of that idea of government presume to have granted to them by the people's rights for the fact that they have not been overthrown or otherwise kicked out of office.
Key Holder, Yes, I very much like it that you replied to my concern about the way we chuse/select/elect our President. What non-plussed me was that you did not mention whether you found the vast difference in HOW we do it versus the WORDING in the Constitution as interesting and possibly significant.
Inasmuch as I would have to compare the two, I can do that sometime soon. Though, superficially, I would go to that task overshadowed by the fact that the people do not complain of it one way or the other, and perhaps that is because as much as some of them might complain about "the president' no matter who holds the position, their complaints are with no effect except as just that . . . . complaints, hot air noise and distraction from the substantive issues needing redress. By another method would the result have been different? Would we have had Rommney / Ryan or some other ? Would we have has Hitlery and Kane ? Neither of the methods provide a direct popular vote method, both relying on an electoral college indirect process. I do not know the reason for the change, nor the qualities of the process changed from one to the other. What I do know it that the capacities of the President are as chief executive of the government and not King, not Emperor or Raja, Caliphate, Sultan or Penultimate Potentate otherwise over the rights and will of the people. Neither is his office one representative of their will, as that is vested, group by group of them as to their own country's interests ( all fifty of them) by the representative function presumably vested in their Congressmen and Senators's official capacities. The President presides by grant of executive capacity power, one not absolute except absolute within its constitutional constraints, the proscribed powers of that Office. His domain is to laud over his cabinet Officers and their operations as well as something of an Exhaulted Pubah for the limited Plenary Proprietary capacities of the federal government as expressed by the Power of exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever as proscribed for the intrinsic jurisdiction provided by Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 to the degree that he can direct for some purposes and lobby or solicit for other purposes the Legislators that they might act or vote in a manner preferential to some objective the Presidents seeks to promote and have as Legislation. Were his an Office omnipotent, no legislature would be needed and none had would have power of their/ its own.
He is not our 'Leader" nor does he preside over our rights lest we permit his opinions and orders, on a man by man basis, to be expressed and given effect by our own voluntary acts. So, although I vote for a president of the United States, essentially on the exhibited characteristics and stated policies of the Man, that is as a matter of providing a particular tenor and team captain effect to the whole of government or that of it which his will or persuasion otherwise might hold sway, which, of course only goes so far since each other member of that body is free to vote every issue according to his conscience though hopefully he votes as directed by the tenor of the expressed conscience of his constituents, as their job description seems to suggest. So, what does it matter what man is President insofar as affecting the people's inalienable substantive rights ? Every interaction of a Man's will in relation to government's expressed will is voluntary, and that is what keeps our people free to the degree that they choose freedom rather than positioning themselves as voluntary servants to the New Plantation which scooped up all the former slaves and held its door open without prejudice to all others who might like to be shackled obligatorily by its terms by operation of law rather than by the outlawed practice of leg irons and hobbles as an operation of actual physical enforcement.
The government denied to those who chose to be denied, the right to actually/ physically hold another human being by physical binds or threat of destruction, though it did not deny the right to hold them constructively to terms of obligation that they voluntarily accept in exchange for prosthetic so-called 'rights' which are but regulated government distributed and regulated privileges. We are not a free nation because of and to the degree that the vast majority of us do choose to subjugate our birth endowed rights to our servant government's dominion and that servant government is duty bound to serve us no matter how self effacing is the effect of the service we demand of it. Our government is not empowered to protect us from our own self destructive acts, protect us from our volunteering to have the otherwise inapplicable U.S. Codes and State statutes dominate our rights, nor to counsel us. We are rightly the government's master and progenitor, and yet most cower before it and lick at its boots, begging to be trod upon. Most of the governments bosses, the people, haven't a clue what their rightful place is in life as an American citizen or in relation to their servant government and they step lively to apply for residence in yet another crib space in the Nanny State complete with overhead mobile displaying Driver license, Taxpayer Identification Number, building permits, parade ans exposition permits, firearms permits and every other slave permission slip.
Key Holder, I don't watch any news. I read after quite a few pundits. I consider what I see in pundit columns with other things that appear to be true, and I try to connect the dots.
Interestingly, you are touching on many of my "dots." that I see as worth connecting. You wrote: "...distraction from the substantive issues needing redress." Therefore, I assume you feel strongly that our Federal Government fails to look at obvious positive things it could work on, and it spends time and money wrangling over things that exacerbate problematic issues. If you say I'm on target with how you feel about this, maybe I can write more. If I keep it succinct, we can hope other readers will begin seeing the dots we are connecting.
First of all, is the following definition the one you are relying on when you use the word "pundit"?
I offer that the people are the original issuers of all power and value on the face of this planet, other than natural resources on which we rely. Both the people and those resources arising by act of nature or expression of God, according to your preference to believe. That power and value may be reserved to each themselves alone, with little effect for changing their lives or the nature of the country and society in which they live, or may be exchanged more or less on par for other folk's expressions of value and their property. A Man on the land alone has no need to express his rights since there is no one else to interact with.
In the United States of America, we recognize one another as endowed with the same rights, but that is where the equality ends; each of us has among our rights the power to prejudice our rights and invite restrictions upon them. After all, a thing which is perfect, such as is the concept of each Man embodying penultimate rights, as American citizen's rights are viewed to be, can only either remain perfect or be marred by he who uses them. The latter is the case for the overwhelming majority of Americans who have busied themselves with applications seeking privileges doled out by their servant governments.
Keep in mind that the political power arises within the rights of the people and it remains with them, IT IS ONLY BY THE PRESUMPTION OF PRIVILEGE GRANTED AS A DELEGATION OF SOME ASPECT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE that representative as well as proprietary government has the consent of the governed. That delegation of power ( privilege to function in a governmental capacity) is an extremely thin thread but an incredibly strong one. The Constitution and the resulting limited governmental expression arising therefrom does act de jure in limited representation of the people generally under the presumption of INDIRECT delegated authority flowing from them collectively as from their recognized unalienable rights, HOWEVER: an aspect of that same government acts bu unlimited power though within a limited scope de facto relative to the unlimited representation and regulation of the particular people whom one at a time do DIRECTLY subjugate their rights to that aspect of the government. We each were delivered by our mothers to the land recognized as supporting the most free individuals on the planet and then most of us set about hanging a variety of chains around our necks. By the very same hands and power by which we adopted those chains of voluntary servitude we must and can cast them off.
I offer that a republic is about as close as a nation can get to a proper anarchy, however; in order for either to succeed, the people's individual responsibility and willingness to be responsible for those of them whom cannot be responsible is elemental. It is for the diverse expression of humanity, whether by natural limits or adopted limits to their political power (individually and collectively), that it is nearly impossible to label any government in an absolutely defined manner. We each are in a state of change throughout life, as are our needs and the world in which we live, so it seems fruitless to me to attempt to address those issues by operation of law or policy of government, though that is what the Liberal model seems aimed to do. Is such an operation of government to the benefit of the self-sufficient or the dependent within our population? I find as most dependable, those who pretty much just want to be left along to do as they wish so long as not injurious to another's rights.
No matter the label applied, the beast is whatever its nature is. SO, if a zebra starts to act more like a lion, is it then properly called "Zebra" . . . . . does the name matter at all ? I, for one, have no interest in arguing labels.
My interest lies with enforcing my rights and casting off obligations to those whom are assigned to serve me.
This is not a reply Key,
It's a whole article. Can we post it that way?
Morton, Regarding your post timed apx 16:45 hrs on 11/12/2018, I am assuming by the word "This", you mean my post of November 6, 2018 at 7:32 am. If that is true, please direct me to the definition for the word or term, "Reply" as controlling for the operative terms of 'Constitution Club' forum use. I have not seen that definition and care not to break the rules.