Why the U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy, and Certainly not Socialism

Dear Liberals and Democrats:
Please take a few moments out of your busy schedules to ponder why our Founding Fathers considered — and rejected — both socialism and democracy, opting instead for a Republic, as written into not only our U.S. Constitution, but the Constitutions of each and every one of the 50 United States in our Union.
 

If you’re intelligence is at least within the top 80%, you may have pondered until your ponderer was sore, but after a brief respite, you may Wbe ready for more:

Well, that was a long one.  Let’s try this five-minute treatise which covers much the same information.

Or perhaps this one, also by William Cooper, but also just five minutes.

Rights and Powers of The People Themselves

Our Founding Fathers fully understood the nature of our God-given inalienable rights:
 
– It’s why they wrote about them in our Declaration of Independence.
 
– It’s why they enumerated some of them in our United States Constitution
 
– It’s why they specifically secured several key rights and freedoms for us in our Bill of Rights.
 
– It’s why they specifically established the retention by the people of other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, along with the reservation of powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to the states and people.
 
Specifically:
 
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – Ninth Amendment
 
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment
 
It’s why the courts have repeatedly (mostly) upheld our Constitutional rights, powers and freedoms, not as any sort of “favors” meted out by a “benevolent” or “indulgent” government, but as fundamental rights,powers and freedoms God Almighty fully intended to be held not by any government, but by the people themselves.

Solving America’s Problems Requires Clear Thinking

Yesterday I stumbled across a rather insightful editorial by Bart Hinkle at the Richmond Times.  He demonstrated such clear thinking that I wrote the author a letter, presented here with minor corrections for spelling, punctuation, and grammar:

I found your recent article to be very insightful.  It is a fascinating look at what ails America today. It boils down to dereliction of duty to “support and defend the Constitution” at ALL levels of government.

I concur with you that Congress has failed to do its duty to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” almost certainly because the loyalty of many Congressman to their party or various idealistic excursions has increasingly eclipsed their loyalty to the proven reality of the Constitution.  Sadly, we see the same thing in the Supreme Court, which should never be the case.  With respect to the points you made in your article, I believe additional factors have come into play, including the increasing fear of being labeled politically incorrect, and the corresponding unwillingness to take necessary and more permanent actions against elected officials who refuse to abide by “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Shortly after retiring from my career as an Air Force officer, I began working to educate people on the dangers facing our nation, particularly from the erosion of the absolute moral base our Founding Fathers cautioned was essential to the long-term health of our nation.  With such a moral base, even an imperfect Constitution and its resulting society would survive, as leaders would retain the same principles, precepts, and moral values held by the framers.  The resolution of unanticipated issues would naturally incline towards the time-tested precepts which have served our nation so well for so long.  Without such a moral base, even a perfect Constitution would eventually fail.  A nation lacking proper morals would be increasingly opposed to Constitutional principles and values, until its leaders began ignoring increasingly larger portions of the Constitution, eventually leaving it behind altogether.

Our Founding Fathers did a miraculous job crafting our Constitution.  It is extremely difficult, however, if not impossible, to create a legal foundation capable of fighting the erosion of society when that society’s elected and appointed leaders, either out of ignorance or willful malice, fail to follow the written legal foundation.

In light of this perspective, I submit to you three additional avenues of failure, along with some proposals for amendments that might be able to stem the flow of our nation’s life-blood, even restore proper function in the presence of decreasing loyalty to the Constitution:

Failure 1:  Education of the people:  Sadly, too many Americans are voting for government officials at all levels not because of what a candidate can do for their country, but because of what a candidate can do for them.  This self-seeking behavior and failure to delay gratification ultimately results in poorer results.  Candidates are rarely able to deliver on their campaign promises.  When a person believes rhetoric promising him or her a better life, and votes for that candidate, they wind up doing little to work hard and secure that life for themselves.  Instead, they wait around for the candidate to make their lives better.  When that fails, they become embittered at the “other guy” their candidate blames as the problem, or they become embittered with the system itself.

The Department of Education and liberal school systems has been largely complicit in this area of demise by lowering and even eliminating the bar in vital areas like civics and history while cluttering the educational landscape with requirements that eclipse a child’s opportunity to obtain a full, well-rounded education suitable for understanding how human society really works.  This is really the root problem of what’s going on in America.  If the people stopped electing those who are undermining our Republic, the problem would largely disappear.  Our Republic would be preserved.  Sadly, many people are no longer capable of correctly assessing the worth of a candidate, or envisioning the long-term effects of electing a candidate.

Possible solutions:  Eliminate the Department of Education and use those funds at the state level to provide for a more graduated pay scale for teachers instead of the current rise and cap pay curves; raise standards required of teachers; ensure those standards reflect the requirements addressed as outlined above.

Failure 2:  Personification of the corporate:  No serious student of the Constitution would ever conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to give business the same access to our government as We the People, much less a 1000% greater influence over Congressional decision-making.  The fallout from this decision has lead to increasingly darker decisions being made by Congress, ones that treat citizens as cattle to be mined for their ability to be skimmed for a fat, corporate/federal profit, instead of the rightful rulers of our once-great nation.

Possible solution:  Check Citizens United with an amendment that declares corporate anthropomorphization to be verboten.  Ensure it reaffirms the Constitution’s focus on We the People under sovereign States as the rightful owners of our own country.

Failure 3:  Senators and Representatives are too similar.  This arose as a result of the 17th Amendment.  Article I, Section 3, which used to read:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…”  The Amendment now reads:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…”  While I understand this was an attempt to solve problems involving legislative corruption and deadlocks, I do not agree it was the best solution.  For all intents and purposes, what we now have are a House and a Senate that look very similar.  Even dividing Congress into two houses makes little sense when the people elect one Representative from their district and two more to represent the State as a whole.  Why not instead simply elect “general Congressmen,” and scrap the two-house system?

Possible solution:  Repeal the 17th Amendment.  The original issue is that “There was a sense that senatorial elections were ‘bought and sold’, changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate.”  That sounds the same as it is today, so what problem was actually solved?  If none, then that’s strike one against the 17th Amendment.  As far as electoral deadlocks, the solution is simple:  Require states to provide for a tiebreaker, much as we have for the Supreme Court and the Senate.  An example might be, “In case of tie, the Assistant Governor will cast the tie-breaking vote.”  They could also flip a coin, roll die, or spin a wheel.  States could choose whatever method they want, so long as it’s expedient.  To help deter delays in breaking such ties, simply stipulate that if the states fail to provide two Senators, those positions will simply remain unfilled and the State will be underrepresented in Congress, something no State wants to face.  Our Constitution set the precedence for that by requiring percentage votes of “members present” for many things, including very important things, such as treaties and impeachment.

Bart, I thoroughly enjoyed your article and have bookmarked you in the hopes of reading many more to come!

Sincerely…

Here is Bart’s response:

Thank you for the note. You raise some very interesting points.

All the best,
B.

It was my pleasure.  

Travesty of Justice

This U.S. Justice System FAILURE is all too common throughout these United States:  A man takes a cell phone away from his 12-year-old daughter as punishment for her misuse of the device.  (Story)  The daughter’s mother (married to someone else) files a complaint of theft against the father.  The district attorney offers him a plea deal.  The father refuses.  A judge issues a warrant for the father’s arrest.  Cops arrest the father.  He demands a jury trial.  He wins.
WRONG — WRONG — WRONG!
This is NOT justice!!!  This man should never have been arrested in the first place.
Before anyone in the Justice System acts, they must first ensure compliance with the U.S. Constitution and State Law as demanded by their oath of office and expected by the citizens who pay their salaries.  They have a duty to themselves and the citizens they swore to “serve and protect” to NEVER act in a manner that runs afoul of “the supreme Law of the Land” or any lawfully derived state or federal law.
Thankfully, “Dallas County Criminal Court Judge Lisa Green ordered the jury to find Jackson not guilty, citing insufficient evidence to prove a theft charge.”
 
Unfortunately, “Although Jackson won the case and is allowed to keep the phone, he said he has had to separate himself from Steppe and his daughter because of this incident. ‘I can’t ever have a relationship with them again,’ he said.”
 
This wasn’t justice.  It was a travesty of justice.  The father was acting squarely within his right and responsibility as a parent.  Our Constitution specifically states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights).  Nowhere does either the Constitution or the Texas State Constitution give the state the power or authority to second-guess the parent under these circumstances.  Meanwhile, countless precedent established under case law substantiates parental authority over child ownership.  That’s why you never leave any significant sum of money to a child.  One or the other parent can take it.  Instead, you leave it in a trust, to which the child has limited and monitored access until they’re either eighteen or as otherwise specified in the trust.
As a result of this travesty of justice, the father and daughter are now as estranged as were the father and his ex-wife.  The father is out many thousands of dollars defending his rightful actions as a parent.
This comedy of errors could have been prevented at any stage:
 
1.  This error should have ended with the wife backing up her daughter’s father.
2. The wife’s current husband, himself a police officer, should have advised his wife that a parent taking something away from a child is both lawful, and in the case of misuse, morally right.
3. The Dallas County Judge should have REFUSED to issue a warrant for the man’s arrest for taking his daughter’s cell phone. That is not only his right, as a parent, to withhold any and all property from his child in response to inappropriate behavior by the child, but it is the responsibility of the parent to do so.  It doesn’t matter if that property is a cell phone or a car. Ownership is subject to parental consent.
 
4.  If the warrant for his arrest specified the cell phone, the responding officers should have refused to serve it, commensurate with their sworn duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  What kind of law enforcement officers do We the People want, anyway?  Those who “just follow orders” or those who know and respect the law, beginning with the most important source of all, our Constitution — “the supreme Law of the Land?”
 
5.  The judge heading up the jury trial should have looked into the case and tossed it for being groundless BEFORE it was brought to trial. That alone cost the man thousands of dollars in legal fees and very unnecessarily so.
 
This case is a prime example of what’s WRONG with our justice system today: NOBODY throughout the entire chain is doing their JOB, which is first and foremost to keep things at the lowest possible level. Instead, they allow everything to be elevated, costing INNOCENT PEOPLE thousands of dollars until they’re “cleared.”
I call that “organized crime.”  It’s a FAILURE of RESPONSIBILITY at all levels of the justice system: The cops, the lawyers, the judge who issued the warrant, the arresting officers, and the judge who let it go to trial.

BIG FAT FAIL

And We the People are the ones being screwed out of our hard-earned dollars yet again.
Each and every single individual involved in that chain of errors should be SUED TO KINGDOM COME. This is NOT what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.  Our system of justice was NOT established to provide lofty incomes for those who ignore common sense while trampling on the Constitutional rights and freedoms of American citizens.
Yes, this is a fairly minor matter.  Yet it happens all the time, often with much poorer outcomes.  It happens all the time in cases involving far more significant sums of money, too.  The problem is that this is happening all the time, at all levels, and once you’re sucked into the system, even the most favorable outcome will cost you thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars.
Ladies and gentlemen, the system of justice as envisioned by our Founding Fathers was true, right, and just.  The system as it exists is a fantastically warped mockery designed to perpetuate and pad the system at the expense — rather than support — of We the People.