Our Nation or the government?

D

Danzig

New member
Reading the thread about Barack Obama and how he relates to the flag got me thinking and so I decided to post a new thread.

It seems to me that there are far to many people who confuse the Nation with the government.

The word "nation" means "a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax."

Our nation happens to be organized as a constitutional republic.

The government is simply a (relatively) small group of individual who are chosen to oversee the operations of, and REPRESENT, the Nation

"Nation" is not synonymous with "government". Neither is "republic" which is a form of government, not the government itself. The term "republic" would be more closely associated with the nation which has taken that form of government rather than with the small group of people chosen to represent that "nation".

In fact, in a republic, all power is supposed to reside with the people..not the government. That is simply more proof that pledging allegiance to the flag which represents our republic means pledging allegiance to the PEOPLE of the nation..not to the government of that nation, which may or may not accurately represent and govern the republic.
 
Exactly. People keep confusing the two. As I say, "I am unquestionably loyal to my country, my government on the other hand....."
 
The Pledge was the brainchild of perhaps one of the first national socialists in America, Francis Bellamy. His original pledge read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In his own words, Bellamy said:

"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."​

Bellamy was a Baptist minister practicing in Boston, until he was "drummed" out by his socialist sermons.

In 1924, the National Origins Act was passed and this made the Pledge a mandatory part of Flag observance.

In 1943, West Virginia State Board Of Education V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), a 1st amendment free speech case, the Court struck down those statutes that made the flag salute and Pledge mandatory.
Justice Robert Jackson said:
"We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent..."
Click to expand...
This has been the prevailing constitutional thought on reciting mandatory pledges of allegiance since then.

In 1954, after an intense campaign by a Catholic mens fraternity, the Knights of Columbus, Congress added the words, "under God," to the Pledge.

In essence then, if you want to say it, fine. But don't begrudge those who won't recite it, either for their religious or political beliefs.

* the word "to" was later added to clarify the meaning.
 
Right. The States are Nations and Republics. And the United States Constitution is a compact between them.

In some ways the US is referred to as a "nation", but the Framers made a distinction between national and federal government, and the US Constitution frames a government with a federal foundation.

The US is not a simple republic, it is a Union of sovereign republics.

And each State is empowered by its people as one sovereign body, whereas the US is empowered by the people as fifty sovereign bodies i.e. the States.

An honest pledge not intended to subvert our frame of government might say something like:

I pledge allegience to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Union for which it stands, sovereign Republics, freely united, under a Constitution.
 
Unfortunately....

Since the Civil War, the soverign republics of our Union have had less and less real authority. The central (Federal) govt. has taken more and more power unto itself, until we are here today, when each state risks the loss of Federal money, if they happen to disagree with the central govt. From speed limits to drug laws, Feds rule. Not quite the situation desired by our Founding Fathers, but the one we have to live with today. If you can figure out a way to change it back (that does not involve another civil war), please, tell us.

Too many people think the Fed govt (or for that matter, all govt in general) is source of authority. The reality is that the people are the "owners" of this nation, and the govt are just "managers" hired by us to run the business.

Our schools once taught this idea, or at least they did until the Fed Gov became directly involved with education in this country. Do they still?
 
From speed limits to drug laws, Feds rule. Not quite the situation desired by our Founding Fathers, but the one we have to live with today. If you can figure out a way to change it back (that does not involve another civil war), please, tell us.
Click to expand...
But the national speed limit was struck down for exceeding federal powers, so the feds aren't as all powerful as we sometimes see them. If there is a way to change it back, I reckon it starts with you and me accepting the Framers' Constitution and rejecting the idea that the federal government is unlimited.

Too many people think the Fed govt (or for that matter, all govt in general) is source of authority. The reality is that the people are the "owners" of this nation, and the govt are just "managers" hired by us to run the business.
Click to expand...
OK, but the people are not the owners of the US as if it was a popular government, as if the people of the US have a right to rise up as one and take over US government ... that is the misconstruction that got us into this mess.
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

No doubt for me who the Founding Fathers (& Mothers:)) thought this Country belongs to.

The only thing thing they probably could not foresee is that there could come a day when we would disregard the Constitution and start treating it as a historical document rather than a living guiding light for our Country.
 
Last edited:
I would think that a good start would be to repeal the 17th amendment and place Senatorial power back with the States, where it belongs, and not with the "people" as is the House.
 
I would think that a good start would be to repeal the 17th amendment and place Senatorial power back with the States, where it belongs, and not with the "people" as is the House.
Click to expand...

But how can we accomplish anything like that? It would be fought tooth and nail by the politicians. They have been paying voters with money from the few and money borrowed from the future for so long that the ones dependant on the handouts far outnumber the ones who would just do the right thing. As long as the majority are promised and receive more than they give, they’ll beat us at the voting booth every time. Game’s over... just waitin’ fur the fat lady!
 
grymster said:
But how can we accomplish anything like that? It would be fought tooth and nail by the politicians.
Click to expand...
Ever read how the 18th came into being? It would take the same kind of effort and possibly the same amount of time.
They have been paying voters with money from the few and money borrowed from the future for so long that the ones dependant on the handouts far outnumber the ones who would just do the right thing. As long as the majority are promised and receive more than they give, they’ll beat us at the voting booth every time. Game’s over... just waitin’ fur the fat lady!
Click to expand...
Yeah, the founders feared Democracy also, for just those reasons.

We are just one step from being a full Democracy. You have noticed the increasing screach to do away with the electorial college, yes?
 
Ah the good ole days or "republic". We should go back to having the governors appoint senators, that should help redress some of the balance of powers. Save money too. People would get only one big state election instead of three.
 
Justme, under the pre-17th constitution, it was the State legislators, not the Governor, who appointed its Senators. Several of the States did have the people vote for Senators via a referendum (a fact that was dismissed at the time), to which the Legislature either approved or not - though usually, the referendum was approved.

Yes, there were problems, problems that were purely procedural in nature, but those problems were not insurmountable. Nor has the 17th proved to be better than the founding idea. The reverse in fact is true. By direct election of Senators, the States have lost their intended representation within the Federal Government.

See this article for a basic definition of the problem and this article for a proposed solution.
 
I was under the impression that many states had the governor appoint senators and the legislature confirm them, sort of like the supreme court. If that was not the case then I stand corrected.

Having said that I do not think that the direct election of senators is a good idea, exactly the opposite in fact. I don't think the election of judges is a good idea either.

Appointees actually go through a much more rigorous process of discovery than do elected officials. My state rep probably knows the skeletons in my state's senators better than the average joe does.

Usually the issues are too complex for any but the most astute to understand and even then who has time to learn the details? I know it sounds bad but too much democracy is almost as bad as too little.

BTW, I also wish there was some sort of proportional representation in the congress. There should be greens and socialists and libertarians and all sorts, not in large numbers but a few to represent the people with those ideas.
 
Can someone explain is simple language the difference between "federal" & "nation"/"National"?
Click to expand...
I think that California has 70 times as many people as Wyoming ... in a federal system, both States would equally empower the central government ... in a national system, California would empower the central government seventy times as much as Wyoming would.
 
Senators are directly elected by the people,

Unless they die in office (heart attack, brain siezure, plane crash, etc.), then their state legislature appoints a replacement to finish the term. Govenors can submit candidates to the legislature, but it is the state houses that make the decision.

Once we had three main power blocks in our nation, the Federal Govt, the States, and the People. Today, for most things, we only have two that count. States rights have been in drastic decline since the Civil War. The Feds sometimes let the States have a little freedom (usually on things that don't really matter alot, like speed limits) but when the Feds care about something, they get their way. And there doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot the States (or the People) can do about it.
 
Antipitas said:
I would think that a good start would be to repeal the 17th amendment and place Senatorial power back with the States, where it belongs, and not with the "people" as is the House.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate this time.

Explain to me the difference between citizens electing their own Senators and the State Legislature appointing Senators.

In my view, the appointed Senator's allegiance will be to his state's politicians and their power brokers. These Senators are insulated from The People by the State's political body. Their congressional votes would, I think, be more likely to satisfy the interests of State politicians and their monied backers than the people as a whole.

A Senator who must run for election by The People is accountable to them for his/her actions in Congress. While they may align themselves with the state's politicans and power-brokers, they must ultimately face the voters directly.
 
That was a darn interesting article on the history of the 17th Amendment, Anti; thanks for posting the link. I guess I never knew about the history of the Senate. Interesting how things have changed.
 
To add on to what Hugh wrote (yes, Hugh, I agree with you:eek:), in a national system, we would have proportional representation of the greens, etc. But the Founders distrusted National systems as much as they distrusted the Monarchy, for many of the same reasons.

The Federal system that the Constitution sets up is a mix of the Roman Federal system with some of the Greek (Athenian) Democratic ideas. Essentially, our form of government is a mixture of the best of the Scottish Enlightenment: Men like Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith and Thomas Reid were widely read and discussed along with the Englishman, John Locke.

BillCA, The purpose of the Senate was to give the States (equal) representation within the Federal Government. It is somewhat analogous to the English House of Lords. The people directly elected their own Representatives, analogous to the English House of Commons.

Senators were never meant to be accountable to the people themselves. They were accountable to the State Government which appointed/elected them, so as to provide another check on a wayward Congress.

ETA: Off Topic posts and responses have been removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top