reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.

A

AZ

New member
reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.
upport H. Con. Res. 443 - Take Action Here http://congress.nw.dc.us/cgi-bin/alertpr.pl?dir=liberty&alert=14 106th CONGRESS<O:P</O:P 2d Session<O:P</O:P <O:P</O:P H. CON. RES. 443<O:P</O:P <O:P</O:P IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. STUMP, Mr. METCALF, and Mr. SANFORD) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary December 4, 2000<O:P</O:P <O:P</O:P CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic. Whereas the form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution of the United States of America is a republic – not a democracy; Whereas the Nation’s founders understood that pure “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” (Federalist No. 10); Whereas throughout the 224-year history of the United States as an independent and sovereign nation, the people of the United States have never exercised power as a democracy; Whereas the people of the United States have always acted by and through the Federal Union of the several States, electing Members of Congress from each of the several States, and the President and Vice President by electoral votes proportioned to the number of Members of Congress representing each State; Whereas in the 2000 election for choosing electors for President and Vice President, it appears that the President-elect and Vice President-elect have won a majority of the state electoral vote, but not a plurality of the nationwide popular vote; Whereas the prospect of electing to office a President and Vice President who did not win the largest number of popular votes has generated proposals calling for a constitutional amendment to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President. Whereas such a national popular election for President and Vice President disregards the constitutional integrity and inviolability of the 50 states as independent and sovereign governments; Whereas in their foresight and wisdom, the people of the United States, meeting by representation in State conventions, adopted a national Constitution preserving the independence and equal standing of the 50 states; Whereas the Federal system of equal and independent states is an essential safeguard against shifting wills of the majority overriding the unchanging rights of the minority; Whereas to preserve the rights of the minority from a tyranny of the majority, the Constitution of the United States struck a principled balance between the people of the most populous States and the people of the least populous States. Whereas to that end, the Constitution of the United States provides that the legislatures of each of the several States, without interference from Congress or any other branch of the Federal Government or state governments, determine the manner of election of the President and the Vice President by State electors from each State; Whereas the number of electors is distributed in accordance with each State’s representation in the House of Representatives and in accordance with each State’s equal standing in the Senate, not by a direct nationwide election in accordance with population alone; Whereas the constitutionally prescribed system in the 2000 election for choosing electors for President and Vice President continues to function as originally designed, protecting minority and States’ rights from the exercise of majority power; and Whereas the electoral college system thereby preserves the diversity of the American people and maintains the United States as a Federal republic – not as a democracy. Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the United States is not a democracy – but a republic – and that the present constitutionally prescribed means by which the President and Vice President are selected State by State is essential to preserving the diversity of the citizenry of the United States and to maintaining the United States as a Federal republic composed of independent and sovereign States.
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/hcr443summary.htm
 
Everything in the proposed legislation is already the case in the United States...

I agree with every word, but what would be the point?

Ken
 
The point being that we would have some more ammunition to stop the press from lying to the people about the type of government we have.
 
Agreed that it would make a point, but is that the purpose of passing new legislation?

This trivializes the legislative process. Laws should be meaningful and used only to address specific problems within our society (with the Legislature strictly adhering to their Constitutional limitations).

If we, as a nation, cannot understand that we are a Constitutional Republic, then we are finished. A feel good piece of legislation will not change that.

This also sets a disturbing precedent. What if, in the future, a heavily liberal Congress picks up on the idea that they can simply legislate what type of government we have? Scary...

Ken
 
What was presented here was a Resolution to Reaffirm that the United States of America is a Republic not a Democracy.
Not new legislation.

WE have to many people calling this country a Democracy. One such person that called this country a Democracy that realy should know better was James Baker just a couple days ago. And it realy chaped my @$$ that he would say it. But it is not uncommon to hear it from most Republicans.

It should be REAFFIRMED not that it would change much. But it may make some ask, what the hell is a Republic.
 
It's not a law, just a resolution pointing out that America is a Constitutional Republic. There seems to be a lot of confusion on that point in the mainstream media.

I'm going to attempt to format this so it's easier to read....

Whereas the form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution of the United States of America is a republic – not a democracy;

Whereas the Nation’s founders understood that pure “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” (Federalist No. 10);

Whereas throughout the 224-year history of the United States as an independent and sovereign nation, the people of the United States have never exercised power as a democracy;

Whereas the people of the United States have always acted by and through the Federal Union of the several States, electing Members of Congress from each of the several States, and the President and Vice President by electoral votes proportioned to the number of Members of Congress representing each State;

Whereas in the 2000 election for choosing electors for President and Vice President, it appears that the President-elect and Vice President-elect have won a majority of the state electoral vote, but not a plurality of the nationwide popular vote;

Whereas the prospect of electing to office a President and Vice President who did not win the largest number of popular votes has generated proposals calling for a constitutional amendment to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President.

Whereas such a national popular election for President and Vice President disregards the constitutional integrity and inviolability of the 50 states as independent and sovereign governments;

Whereas in their foresight and wisdom, the people of the United States, meeting by representation in State conventions, adopted a national Constitution preserving the independence and equal standing of the 50 states;

Whereas the Federal system of equal and independent states is an essential safeguard against shifting wills of the majority overriding the unchanging rights of the minority;

Whereas to preserve the rights of the minority from a tyranny of the majority, the Constitution of the United States struck a principled balance between the people of the most populous States and the people of the least populous States.

Whereas to that end, the Constitution of the United States provides that the legislatures of each of the several States, without interference from Congress or any other branch of the Federal Government or state governments, determine the manner of election of the President and the Vice President by State electors from each State;

Whereas the number of electors is distributed in accordance with each State’s representation in the House of Representatives and in accordance with each State’s equal standing in the Senate, not by a direct nationwide election in accordance with population alone;

Whereas the constitutionally prescribed system in the 2000 election for choosing electors for President and Vice President continues to function as originally designed, protecting minority and States’ rights from the exercise of majority power; and

Whereas the electoral college system thereby preserves the diversity of the American people and maintains the United States as a Federal republic – not as a democracy. Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the United States is not a democracy – but a republic – and that the present constitutionally prescribed means by which the President and Vice President are selected State by State is essential to preserving the diversity of the citizenry of the United States and to maintaining the United States as a Federal republic composed of independent and sovereign States.
 
I'm with Ken

Whenever I hear about some 'resolution' or law being enacted to force some brach of the Imperial Federal Gubmint to follow the Constitution, I always think, "What's the point?"

Aren't things already pretty clear? Do you really think another affirmation will clarify things?
 
I honestly think

your time would be better spent lobbying to get the Congress to abolish the Department of Education and return the tax money to the taxpayers and allow them to educate their children to read and write. There would be no problems with understanding our form of gumt, then. As it is, we have to deal with massive levels of illiteracy in our college-educated "elite".
 
reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.
Click to expand...
Well said and true as it should be. The fact is that the United States of America is a GOVERNMENT a government that is totally out of control as grown by power mongers since before 1850. Small government does not exist today as was intended in the Constitution and it will never again. We are, for the most part, not pioneers anymore, we depend on the government to provide us with services for our tax dollars in the way of common infrastructure.
I would like to continue this thread but I want to go and watch what ALGORE has to say on the tube.
Regards
Oh, For those of you who don't know, I hate large and wasteful government!
 
up date

December 11, 2000


A Republic, Not a Democracy

Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred "democracy." Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the "will of the people" being thwarted by the courts. Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our "democratic system" if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes. "I'm really in love with our democracy," one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?
Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."
Last week I introduced a resolution in Congress which reaffirms our nation's republican form of government. H.Con Res 443 serves as a response to recent calls for the abolition of the electoral college. The collectivist liberals want popular national elections (rather than the electoral college system) because they know their constituencies are concentrated in certain heavily populated states. They want to nullify the voting power of the smaller, pro-liberty states. Supporters of my resolution in Congress can send a strong message that every state still matters, and that liberty is more important than shifting majority sentiment.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Interested in Constitutional Issues? Checkout The Freedom Page radio show
audio tapes. Just click: http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com/store.html
 
Did anyone else notice that both Gore and Bush made references to our country being a democracy in their speeches?

Colonel Cooper has said a few things on the subject of calling things by their correct names. About all we can do is to be a good example and gently correct others who don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top