The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was “Republic,” which is not synonymous with “Democracy.” The word “Democracy” is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is “to the Republic for which it stands.”
Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
So why did they reject Democracy? Because it is inherently flawed with the “share the wealth” philosophy, which only works as long as there is someone else’s money to share. Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent. They also lose a portion of their incentive to produce.
Fraser Tyler, author of The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic authored more than 200 years ago said it best. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
Where does the money come from for all the “good” that government does? Answer, out of someone else’s pocket. If it is with his consent it is a form of charity. If forced, a form of tyranny. The more and the longer given, the more entitled the receiver becomes until he is quite willing to take to the streets and demand more of other people’s money, fully satisfied that he has every right to it. This works until those who have money are destroyed as a class and everyone is equally poor. The result is a diminished standard of living for everyone, as was the case under 20th Century communism.
A Democracy gives us the principles of majority rules and frequent elections with options, but little more. It does not protect us from the government’s redistribution of wealth philosophy, which entitles the less productive to get something for nothing.
A Republic includes frequent elections with options. It also gives place to majority rules, but only to a point, for as your mother told you growing up, the majority is not always right. A Republic is also based upon natural unalienable rights that come from a source higher than man (for example life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)
Minority rights are protected from the majority in a Republic. A lynch mob is Democracy. Everyone voted but the man being lynched. A Republic rescues this man gives him a fair trial with a bona fide judge and witnesses for his defense. In a Republic there is an emphasis on individual differences rather than absolute equality. Such individual differences are seen as a strength in a Republic rather than as a flaw under Democracy, which equates sameness as equality.
Limited government is also a major aspect of a Republic. The government is handcuffed from dominating our lives. There is a list of functions and a clear process for obtaining additional power. Finally, there is a healthy fear of the emotion of the masses, destabilizing natural law upon which real freedom is based.
The Founders created a Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution, as designed, is the mechanism to ensure we stay a Republic. We must demand from our leaders a strict adherence to that document in order to preserve our liberty, and that of future generations.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
The Constitution divided power between two separate but co-equal governing bodies: the states and the national government. This division is called federalism and is so important that the flow of power away from the people cannot be preserved without it. It is the concept that in most things the states are not subordinate to the national government but in fact immune from it.
The national government was to handle mostly foreign concerns, and the states were to handle internal concerns. The states never surrendered any power that they felt they could manage and any new powers subsequently given required three-fourths of the states’ permission, per Article V of the Constitution.
The Constitution then divided the power left at the national level into three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial branches, each a check on each other to prevent consolidation of power into one body. Collectively they were the national component while the states were the federal component hence the shared and equal concept known as federalism. Think of this relationship as a marriage, neither the servant of the other and each with different duties.
How would one know who had the power and when? Article I, Sec. 8 listed the powers of the national government and Amendment 10 noted that all other powers “belonged to the states and to the people.” Who would keep the national government in its place due to their natural tendency to grow? The clarity of the document and the states themselves protecting the interests of their own people would do so by failing to comply when their partner in marriage overstepped boundaries. But one other step was critical: the creation of a bicameral legislature, one representing the people (the House of Representatives), the other the states (the Senate).
The Senate was never actually created to represent the people. Why would they create two legislative bodies doing the same thing? It was created to protect the needs of the states that indirectly protected the needs of its citizens. All law would be reviewed from two perspectives and both must be satisfied before enactment. James Madison explained, “No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the states.”
Today the states have no voice in the making of law, and federalism and freedom are dying proportionally because of who elects the senators. Initially, under the Constitution, the State legislature selected their two U.S. Senators. These were individuals who were familiar with and loyal to state issues, and were usually one of their own gifted in the articulation of their interests as well.
Today, because of the 17th Amendment, ratified early in the 20th Century, Senators are directly selected by the voters like their counterparts in the House and can appeal to solely popular perspectives and may know nothing of the state legislatures concerns of an overpowering national government. They may not even need to campaign in their state capital to get elected. For example, the national government has no constitutional jurisdiction over water use, or environmental issues within a state. A California senator should be arguing such in Washington D. C. Without this voice, the National government moves into State areas of power pretty much at will and no other government is powerful enough to stop them.
By mandating that the people rather than the states select the U.S. Senators, the 17th Amendment undid the benefits of a bicameral legislature: one specifically oriented to the needs of the masses, and the other oriented to the needs of the states. The result, whether intended or not, did great damage to federalism and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which ensured federalism.
The only real solution to taking the Tenth Amendment off life support is to rescind the 17th Amendment. Although it may have enhanced democracy, it also removed from the states their voice in the U.S. Senate and hence the ever-increasing growth of government at liberty’s expense.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
Media accounts of candidate activities and/or their public statements by themselves rarely give enough information to vote intelligently, and candidate debates, at least on the state, county, and city level, are poorly attended. One wonders if candidate charisma along with color, size, and number of signs displayed are not the most significant factors for most voters in making a selection.
However, many do wish to vote intelligently but may not know how to proceed. They first need to formulate a philosophical base that should go far deeper than the rhetoric of a political party. If I may be so bold to cite a personal example, my own base begins with my solid Christian background. Regardless of party or ideology, I want my public servants to emulate such solid values as honesty, integrity, morality, etc. I also would like to believe that when confronted with tough decisions they, like Washington and Lincoln, would not hesitate to ask God to illuminate their understanding.
Next, my ideological base rests solidly in the writings of the Founding Fathers, and theirs was based upon human nature and natural law that does not change. My years of study of the Constitution has convinced me that individual liberty cannot be maintained by straying too far from it or from the collective philosophical base of that group of early patriots. I have made their collective ideological base my own.
Their philosophical base consisted of many elements. Space permits my covering only a few. They believed that government should be limited, its powers strictly defined, and that these powers should be listed specifically in a contract with the people. On the federal level those limits are outlined in the U.S. Constitution. (Art. I, Sec. 8 limits the Legislative Branch; Art II, Secs. 2-3 limits the Executive Branch; and Art. III, Sec. 2 limits the Judicial Branch.) Hence, I cannot support a candidate who works to increase government influence over the individual—whether at the city, county, state, or federal level—and/or who believes in fudging or moving outside those specifically listed grants of power, and you can’t either if you wish to remain Constitutionally grounded.
Another basic premise of the Founding Fathers crucial to the preservation of liberty is that we should never elevate to a higher level of government that which could be resolved at a lesser level. In other words, the county should never assume as part of its governance load that which the city could and should do. Nor should the state assume the prerogatives of the county, or the Federal Government those of the state, county, or city.
When this happens, power flows upward and away from the people and is seldom returned. Those who make the decisions are less accessible, thus less susceptible, to local influence; and the program, now managed from hundreds or thousands of miles away, usually costs more because of less efficient management.
Often the enticement of money is used to facilitate the transfer of power. States have a tough time saying no to federal grants; and when state governments offer inducement moneys to cities and/or counties for some project or program, rare is the councilman or supervisor with the courage to say no. Initially the money is free, then with a few strings attached, finally with conditions mandated; and thus the autonomous independent nature of cities and counties is compromised. I knew a city councilman some years ago who complained that his city was virtually controlled by the state in that at least half of what was placed before him for his vote was already mandated by some higher governing entity.
Hence, a major concern in my voting practices rests with this question: Could this function be handled at a lesser level of government? If yes, then it should be. When considering candidates for public office, does this person actively work to keep decision-making power as close to the people as possible—even if it is unpopular to do so—or is his usual answer to every governmental dilemma more government and more money to fund more programs? The latter candidate is sure to leave us with less freedom and less money as well.
A country ceases to remain a country when it ceases to protect its borders. The Roman Empire ceased to exist for that very reason, coupled with moral decay.
Two places in the Constitution reference the need to protect our borders: the Preamble identifies as a purpose of the federal government to “provide for the common defense” and Article IV requires that they ”protect each of them (the states) against invasion.” With more than half a million illegals crossing the border a year, this is an invasion, and the federal government is not doing its job. Too many people who are totally ignorant of their governing document want to weigh in on this issue. Fortunately, Arizonians understand. Arizona did not make illegal immigration illegal, the federal government did.
The new bill, “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” is the direct result of the Federal Government not protecting its citizens from invasion. It has nothing to do with race or any other subject. It has to do with enforcing an already existing law. It simply codifies federal law into state law. If the feds won’t protect us, the state government will. Thank you Arizona for protecting our Constitution, and other states should follow.
For a person to be stopped, he or she must already be offending the law. Once stopped, those suspected of being illegal immigrants are asked to provide papers. But the stop itself must be for other reasons. The actual law reads: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”
This procedure is similar to that followed when a driver is weaving from one side of the road to another. The stopping officer demands a breathalyzer test and asks to see a drivers license and vehicle registration papers. If something does not feel right the officer may also check the vehicle against those that have been reported stolen or the individual against a wanted list. The Constitutionally ignorant have made a case for the unconstitionality of the law on the basis of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Such could be argued for any of the regular aforementioned police activities. But as noted the law prohibits unreasonable searches.
For individuals or cities showing sympathy for those breaking federal law, Arizona would remind them that they are accomplices to a crime and now break state law as well. The bill reads: “No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” All this could be avoided if the federal government did its Constitutionally mandated function and provided for the common defense by protecting us against invasion.
Under pressure, President Obama has finally agreed to send 1,200 National Guardsmen to the border. However, that is about one seventh of what is needed. The phrase too little too late comes to mind.
All are encouraged to spend their vacation time in the lovely state of Arizona to soften the blow of the boycott against them.
As the federal government grows and becomes ever more intrusive on our liberties, more people then ever before are looking to the Constitution to save us. Of particular interest is the list of the things the federal government is entitled to do, identified in Section 8.
During this time in history, the colonies had just rejected Parliament’s attempt to gain more power over them; in fact the cause of the American Revolution was excessive government. As a result, the states knew they needed to handcuff the federal government so that unrestrained government could never happen again. In the Constitutional Convention they decided to only forfeit specific powers to the federal government, and those powers were things that the states agreed that they could not reasonably do themselves. All areas not mentioned were to remain with the states.
There are many less well-known facts to keep in mind as you review Section 8. Convention delegates curiously placed every power in one sentence with 18 paragraphs. This strange construction was to make it even more difficult for future power grabbers to isolate and enhance a power. Everything had to be considered in the context of the one sentence.
The Founders gave the federal government only four areas of power: taxes, paying the debts, providing for the general welfare (that’s not the same as providing the general welfare), and providing for the common defense. That is it. All four powers are identified before the first semi colon. Everything that follows are simply qualifiers of these four.
The Founders did not dare to leave the phrase “general welfare” for future power grabbers, as there is no telling what they could do with this vague concept if left undefined. They understood that it is the nature of all governments to grow. As a result, clauses 2-9 list 14 powers that comprise “general welfare.” Five deal with borrowing money, regulating its value, and dealing with counterfeiting. The other nine powers include naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.”
National health care is not anywhere near the 14 powers detailing general welfare. For this reason national health care is unconstitutional. If national healthcare can be prostituted from this list anything can, thus ending any pretense of a government with limited powers. We might as well have a sentence that Congress can make any rules they like.
This section is hated by big government advocates who do everything they can to explain it away. They are betting on the likelihood that you and I won’t read and understand this section nor hold them accountable to it. They cleverly disguise their policies to try and force them to fit into these categories, and whether they actually do or not is irrelevant to them. For this reason your liberty is under fire. Read Article I Section 8 and keep it marked for frequent reference. Send this column to your friends and neighbors. Hold your leaders accountable at the polls. Be on the side of freedom in this fight against tyranny.
I am thrilled that Nancy Pelosi finally understands the need to politicize the churches. Actually they played a major role in bringing on the American Revolution as they, from the pulpit, encouraged their parishioners to actively advocate liberty. With respect to liberty, the loss of such has proceeded to the point that today you are either a part of the problem or part of the solution. Ministers, this is the Second American Revolution, using words rather than muskets for now. Your people need to be encouraged to stand up for freedom while they still can. In most revolutions Christians are among the first victims.
Now Nancy, illegal immigrants are those whose first act in America is to break the very laws that you helped create, thereby defying what you do. That is why they are called “illegal.” I hope the ministry also points this out to their people. And Nancy, I hope that you never criticize the Christian Coalition or any other group that advocates the restoration of Christian values in our schools such as prayers, or symbols, or express themselves with signs in California that express a conservative viewpoint, such as advocating against gay marriage or abortion. Should you do so, be prepared to be called a first class hypocrite.
So Nancy let us hear what you have to say about the Bible and the Christian ministry in politics so that we can better understand your new position of strong Christian advocacy.
