Safeguarding the rights
I usually enjoy reading the Letters to the Editor until I read an article full of misinformation, and erroneous quotes.
The submission titled “The rule of law” tried to use a quote by Dr. Benjamin Franklin but fell short by a mile. The quote written in the letter was as Ben Franklin was leaving after the Constitutional Convention someone asked “What kind of government did you give us?” to which Franklin replied “A Democracy if you can keep it.”
The actual documented exchange by Dr. James McHenry one of Maryland’s delegates to the convention states that “A lady asked Dr. Franklin, well doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy? A republic replied Dr. Franklin if you can keep it.” McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906 p.618.
Now you may ask why is this important? There is an important distinction between these two forms of government. Democracy and republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The majority unlimited, in a democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of the individual and the minority; and (b) The majority limited, in a republic under a written constitution safeguarding the rights of the individual and the minority.
In a democracy, the individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of majority-over-man. This is true whether it be a direct democracy, or a representative democracy. This opens the door to unlimited tyranny-by-majority. This was what the framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the federal (framing) convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any democracy.
Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to – is the very antithesis of – the traditional American system: that of a republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence.
A republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. The definition of a republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written constitution – adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment – with its powers divided between three separate branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the “snob-rule” of a governing elite and the “mob-rule” of an omnipotent majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate the individual’s rights – to endanger the people’s liberties.
The label “republic” has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused which explains why examples used in “The rule of law’ such as republic of Slovenia and Peoples’ Republic of China were a perfect misuse by those governments. Actually until 2006, the Republic of Congo was known as the Democratic Republic of Congo. We don’t have a Democratic Republic as the author of “The rule of law” mistakenly believes.
As far as the “attempt” to excuse Democrat behavior, Slick Willy lying about having sex with women other than is wife numerous times, Obama lying about a video to cover a terrorist attack resulting in 4 dead Americans, lying about selling guns to Mexican drug Cartels that resulted in a dead American border agent. Phony scandals? Tell that to the five families that this administration is directly responsible for their loved ones not being here anymore.
Impeachable Obama offenses? Here are few.
1) Aug. 14, 2013: The Obama administration delayed the provision in ObamaCare to cap out-of-pocket health care costs, picking and choosing parts of the law to enforce, which is to exceed its authority.
2) July 17, 2013: The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the federal appeals courts in D.C. and Philadelphia in ruling President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board recess appointments – who by law must be approved by Congress – were unconstitutional. Thus far, the president has ignored the ruling.
3) July 1, 2013: The Obama administration unilaterally decided to delay the employer mandate provision of ObamaCare for a year, which is to provide information to the feds about the extent of an applicant’s insurance. Never mind that the law states the mandate must go into effect on Jan. 1, 2014.
4) June 15, 2012: The Obama administration announced it will stop deporting illegal immigrants under the age of 30 in a “deferred action” policy to circumvent immigration laws.
I guess we can assume the saying is correct, If a Democrat’s lips are moving, they are lying. “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your plan, If you like your doctor , you can keep your doctor.”