The word democracy is not in the US Constitution, not in the Declaration of Independence and not in any state constitution.

Жыл бұрын

of course not. For the reasons explained. The word slavery. The word women isn't either. And for the same reasons.

@King31j

Жыл бұрын

Republic isn’t in the US constitution as well.

@CPGSFG3000

Жыл бұрын

I know nothing about this, but it is interesting. I’m sure they knew of the word democracy back then and were probably extremely meticulous with word selection when writing these things out. I’d imagine if they wanted democracy to be understood in these doctrines they would have made it a priority to include it. The fact that it wasn’t when they are fully aware seems odd. To specifically exclude that word choice selection. Idk I’m just saying. . . ( I know nothing though)

@jasonh5547

Жыл бұрын

@@King31j The Constitution states that the federal government will ensure the states have a "republican" form of government.

@jeremyunderhill3203

Жыл бұрын

@@King31j no it's not but it is in the pledge of allegiance and as well if you wish to have citizenship you must swear your allegiance to this Republic.

What's sad is that we learned this shit in 10th grade but apparently no one bothered to listen.

@lavictorsermons6632

4 ай бұрын

Exactly!!! We've become a stupid blockhead nation now. Shameful

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

Nowadays they don't teach why the Founding Fathers rejected democracies' mob rule.

@sscalercourtney5486

2 ай бұрын

No, you like most Americans were taught what your local politicians wanted you to believe. If you try to teach history in an American high school, you are taught to teach what the local politicians in power want students to learn and not reality. This is true both in liberal and conservative local areas. Both sides tell teachers to teach what the local politicians want you to believe rather than reality. Or be fired. It's like few Americans apparently know for the first 7 years of our Republic (at that time we were a Republic) we were a Confederation ruled under the Articles of Confederation rather than under our present Constitution. I'm astounded so few actually know that. The Articles of Confederation failed so badly, we went to a stronger more centralized Federal system after only 7 years. Again, I love reality. And Reality is both conservative and liberal politicians fire American History teachers if they teach reality instead of what the majority of local people want to believe. Liberal or conservative, neither want people taught the reality of history. And it appears to me, the vast majority of people do not want to learn the reality of our history, but the fake story that they want to believe. Most people can't handle reality. Which in part explains why so many drug themselves up or get lost in some political fantasy, imho. And that also is reality.

@heirton9999

6 күн бұрын

that where republic yes can't fine any demracy on any money or bill right law ect hell got speend tickert say repblis ????

We need to protect our Constitution

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

Yep, the democracies want to tear it up, the Constitutional Republic is blocking their harm's way.

@baneofbanes

Ай бұрын

@@VictorAverayou do realize that a constitutional republic is a form of democracy right?

@Brian_P

14 күн бұрын

​@@baneofbanes no, it's not. We are a constitutional representative Republic. A democracy is The will of the popular. You ever heard the saying.. would you jump off a bridge because all your friends are doing it? Basically applies here. Our founding fathers were so brilliant as to set up a representative style of government and put checks and balances in place to keep out mob rule. We're still governed by the people but in a very different way than true democracy. Congress is more of a democratic branch of government where as each state gets Congress seats appointed in relation to the population of said state. However it is balanced out by the Senate where every stat gets 2 senators.. every state gets equal say no matter the population. What works for New York doesn't always translate in Montana. People are different with different values and our system of government is supposed to safeguard from giant population states totally overpowering smaller population states. At the root of everything is the constitution, which GUARANTEES the rights within never to be hindered. A true democracy would be mob rule. As you get into smaller governments as in state, county, and city governments it becomes more of a democratic form of government, as it should. On a local level you want more of a direct say on issues. At a national level it would be impossible for your average person to keep up on all issues and vote with a clear understanding of the repercussions of voting one way or another. As it is now, there are many people who vote for something that they do not have a clear understanding of. I have had discussions with people who voted for something and had no idea of what was really in the bill or ordinance they were sold some story by a special interest group. So basically in a democracy which ever side spends the most money on propaganda where they choose what to include or leave out or what to skew and what to be honest about... wins. That is why we vote in representatives who share your values. It becomes their full time job to study the issues and the potential outcomes of voting one way or another.

@baneofbanes

13 күн бұрын

@@Brian_P a constitutional representative republic sis f irl of democracy. That’s what the term “representative” means, as in representative democracy. It’s why Thomas Jefferson called his party the democratic republicans. You’re a fool who is talking out of your ass.

No other Country has A Constitution that Restrains the government. That’s why we are a Constitutional Republic.It’s written to protect the people from themselves.

7 ай бұрын

What do you mean that restrains the government. Do you mean the bill of rights?

@cthoadmin7458

3 ай бұрын

I think you'll find most western democracies have something like that.

@victor_2216

3 ай бұрын

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

@Mike-ne8eb

3 ай бұрын

​@@victor_2216It's still a representative democracy and republic.

@victor_2216

3 ай бұрын

@@Mike-ne8eb It's not. Stop trying to throw the word "democracy" into it.

The thing missed here and most people miss, The desire of our founding fathers to have little centralized gov in dc, and that more power be given to the poeple by way of more localized gov.

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

@littledogsbigdogs1637

3 ай бұрын

@@jaguarreal9116 IKR xD

@timhuson4800

3 ай бұрын

@@VictorAvera Which, of course, is a form of democracy, so the Constitution requires every state to be a democracy. See how it works. If you are required to eat an apple, you are by that very fact required to eat a fruit.

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

@@timhuson4800 Stop trying to get democracy into the Constitution, there's no democracy or any other form of government and/or any other form of belief in the Constitution, Except there's only the Republican form of government mentioned and enforced by the Constitution of the USA.

@jaguarreal9116

2 ай бұрын

​@timhuson4800 the main point is, less power at the fed level, more at local level.

Thank you so much ! I couldn't find the answer to my question anywhere despite surfing the net for hours. It is really appreciable how you clear doubts and concepts on basic topics that cannot be found in our textbooks or even browsers.

Жыл бұрын

That makes my day.

5:13 the distinction you’re looking for, but do please watch this excellent video for the full explanation

a pure democracy is mob rules. historically that has not worked out well for minorities. it's the reason we have a congress and a senate. what the majority wants is not always what is fair or just. it is also the reason we have an electoral college. so that smaller states can have their voices heard as well. otherwise, Texas, California, Florida and New York would be about the only states that mattered when it came to voting.

2 жыл бұрын

tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video

@Thasgonna

2 жыл бұрын

@ you're right. I watched about 30 seconds of it and knew where the rest of the video was going. have a nice day..

2 жыл бұрын

@@Thasgonna why did you feel the need to criticize something you haven't watched? Would you mind explaining?

@valdavis7461

Жыл бұрын

@ He's brainwashed by Fox.

@jimmccandless4307

Жыл бұрын

👍Judge Andrew Napolitano Brett Kavanaugh On the Patriot Act allows federal agents to write their own search warrants without evidence and judge approval kzread.info/dash/bejne/nnhr09yBZNLIY7w.html

I've seen many write: The US in not a democracy, but a republic. The sentence is completely meaningless, as the terms republic and democracy are not connected. The only thing the word republic mean, is that the head of state is a president, the alternative is a monarchy with a king or queen as head of state. Nothing is known about democracy or dictatorship only by saying the word republic. A country can be a democracy or a dictatorship. But saying a country is a democracy gives no information about it being a republic or a monarchy. Just that it is a democracy. The alternative to democracy is dictatorship. So if you don't want a democracy, you're saying you want a dictatorship.

As I heard somebody say, when James Madison helped construct the constitution and the other founding fathers liked the idea of implementing some forms of Democracy into our Constitution Federal Republic. They didn't plan on having 100% of either

@anael55

Жыл бұрын

The Bill of Rights were written because the people refused to ratify the constitution unless there were guarantees for their rights to liberty & freedom. It does not change the fact that our founders enshrined a Constitutional Republic. There are no mentions of "democracy" in either of the documents; not even the Declaration of Independence.

@DrSanity7777777

9 ай бұрын

Yes, the founders feared “direct democracy” and accounted for "unruly passions" with a system of “representative democracy.” Yes, this “republic” had counter-majoritarian aspects, like equal representation of states in the Senate, the presidential veto and the Supreme Court. But it was not designed for minority rule. Virtually everything was geared toward producing representative majorities that could govern on behalf of the country - to diminish “faction” in favor of consensus. And in the case of the Electoral College, the point wasn’t to stymie majorities but to provide a way to find a competent and popular chief executive in a large nation of parochial states. "The sense of the majority should prevail. However this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common sense." - Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist No. 22) It’s worth asking where this quip - “we’re a republic, not a democracy” - even came from. Nicole Hemmer, a historian of American politics and the author of “Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics,” traces it to the 1930s and 40s. “When Franklin Roosevelt made defending democracy a core component of his argument for preparing for, and then intervening in, the war in Europe, opponents of U.S. intervention began to push back by arguing that the U.S. was not, in fact, a democracy,” she wrote in an email. One Roosevelt opponent, for example - Boake Carter, a newspaper columnist who supported the America First Committee (which opposed American entry into World War II) - wrote a column in October 1940 called “A Republic Not a Democracy,” in which he strongly rebuked the president for using the word “democracy” to describe the country. “The United States was never a democracy, isn’t a democracy, and I hope it will never be a democracy,” Carter wrote. The term went from conservative complaint to right-wing slogan in the 1960s, when Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, used it in a September 1961 speech, “Republics and Democracies.” In a democracy, Welch protested, “there is a centralization of governmental power in a simple majority. And that, visibly, is the system of government which the enemies of our republic are seeking to impose on us today.” “This is a Republic, not a Democracy,” Welch said in conclusion, “Let’s keep it that way!” These origins are important. If there’s substance behind “We’re a republic, not a democracy,” it’s not as a description of American government. There’s really no difference, in the present, between a “republic” and a “democracy”: Both connote systems of representation in which sovereignty and authority derive from the public at large. The point of the slogan isn’t to describe who we are, but to claim and co-opt the founding for right-wing politics - to naturalize political inequality and make it the proper order of things. What lies behind that quip, in other words, is an impulse against democratic representation. It is part and parcel of the drive to make American government a closed domain for a select, privileged few. "The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist, the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection." - Henry Wallace The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction. "The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

💥💥💥In a democracy, the will of the people is carried out through elected officials. In a Republic, the citizens elect people to carry out the business of government. We have a democratic style republic.🗽🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

@jamiscannondale1834

3 ай бұрын

@@VictorAvera Whatever and however people describe it... We have a democratic style Republic. I hope that's easy enough for people to understand without obfuscating with xtra 🌪️

@sscalercourtney5486

2 ай бұрын

Sorry, you are confusing Representative Government with Republic and Democracy.

@jamiscannondale1834

2 ай бұрын

@@sscalercourtney5486 Sorry, No, You are the one that's confused...Everything I stated is true. Your GED needs a tune up🎯🗽🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

@tamekajenkins23

2 ай бұрын

J.C. is right. We are a constitutional republic, but it's a democratic style republic👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿

Constitutional Republic.

constitutional federal republic not just republic

@valdavis7461

Жыл бұрын

both a constitutional republic and a representative democracy

@jimmccandless4307

Жыл бұрын

@@valdavis7461 It makes no difference what man has said now or in the past. Only the results the latent manifestations give us truth to the matter. Results of Representative democracy. Yeah lets use this Representative democracy and vote to spend all the money our government has. Then we will create massive debt not $100 lets do billions and trillions 31 trillions. That way the next generation and future generations will be slaves. Yep then we can get kickbacks from the foreign countries we loan our peoples money too. If We the People (the Americans) if they don't anti up we will arm and hire 87,000 irs agents. And if they complain we will abolish the 1st ammendment their right to free speech. If they continue to complain we will take away their 2nd ammendment their right to bare arms.. Then we will abolish their 4th ammendment and take away their right to defend against illegal search and seizure. We will remove judicial authority and give it to every public servant and We will call these public servants agents and give every agent rights to violate privacy by their will using our label probable cause. Yes these agents will be judge and jury .. Representative democracy yes ! We the public servants now communist dictators can sell America 🇺🇸 its land, its farms, its medicines, its high technology, its military weapons and its technology. .. Representative democracy yes we can cause wars encourage conflicts and supply weapons to get special interest rich. And they will fund our campaigns and our shrines ! We can control the mainstream media and the social media on the internet to sell our false narratives our propaganda just like communist China. Representative democracy not Constitutional rule of law. we public servants can thwart free enterprise and the free market economy by bypassing the Constitution and imposing laws and regulations that allow only the businesses, we will to succed. Yes we can authorize the destruction of anti trust laws so foreign interest can dump their products at less than cost until the American supply chain is in ruin. Yep the communist found a way into our public schools and taught Representative democracy and immortality to the next generation. Don't believe me go type in youtube Yuri Bezmenov the demoralization of America! Our Constitutional rule of law has been subverted ! Our Liberty taken, future generations sold into slavery . 11 trillion to 31 Trillions of dollars in debt in less than 2 years and our public servants have turned into totalitarian Dictators. Representative democracy Yep we have idiots that want power, control freaks that want to abolish Liberty, that wish to be gods that are willing to fund gain of function bioweaponS technology in communist China ! WTH ? When Public "servants" become dictators and tyrants and cease to be our neighbors it is time for them to be removed! Watch "Republic vs (mob rule) Democracy" on KZread kzread.info/dash/bejne/fXqM16mCoNbKdZM.html Watch "240th Anniversary of Patrick Henry's Speech" on KZread kzread.info/dash/bejne/hmeG1bWadZfMdtI.html

@Americanpatriot602

11 ай бұрын

“ And to this republic for which we stand” We are a constitutional republic! Looks in the constitution, oracle for section for forbids us to become a democracy!

@Mike-ne8eb

4 ай бұрын

​@@Americanpatriot602Here's proof that we're both a federal constitutional representative republic and federal constitutional representative democracy. John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted. Chief Justice John Marshall-who helped lead the fight in the Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution-likewise defended the Constitution in that convention thus: I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom. James Wilson, Supreme Court justice at Constitutional Convention referred to the constitution as "democratical" when compared to the "monarchical and aristocratical" forms of government: "Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE…" Thomas Jefferson referred to the United States as a representative democracy in his lettee to Mr. Peter H. Wendover in March of 1815. Monticello Mar. 13. 15. Sir Your favor of Jan. 30. was recieved after long delay on the road, and I have to thank you for the volume of discourses which you have been so kind as to send me. I have gone over them with great satisfaction, and concur with the able preacher in his estimate of the character of the belligerents in our late war, and lawfulness of defensive war. I consider the war, with him, as ‘made on good advice,’ that is, for just causes, and it’s dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of kings; has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural right of expatriation, and of a common property in the ocean, and raised us to that grade in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen-souldiers, by land and by sea, the wisdom of our institutions and their observance of justice entitled us to in the eyes of the world

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

I have a question, if lets say a country has democratic in their name, but the people dont choose the leader, does it mean that the name isnt what the reality is?

Жыл бұрын

Lots of countries are like that today. DRC not very democratic, the DPRK (North Korea) not either or the people’s republic of China etc. But also in the past like the Holy Roman Empire which famously was called out for being neither Holy. Roman nor an Empire.

@hmmmmmmmmm7267

Жыл бұрын

@ Oooooh okay, thank you!

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

Just like the "Democratic Party".

This video is great, but to get the full experience, one must read all the passive aggressive replies to everyone who didn't understand this video

4 ай бұрын

😂😂😂 I appreciate the review.

so like free market economies with their own currencies?

Legit unprovocative question to the author. Which one do you believe is a better form of government between a democracy and a republic, or between its derivatives? I understood from the video that the pure democracy does not protect the minorities, but such countries as North Korea are usually labeled as a "republic". Now, I am confused whether a republic is a good form of government, or is it good in words but leads to a dictatorship in practice (like communism)? Most of the dictatorship/police states label themselves as a republic. Meanwhile, I do not like the idea of democracy if it means "the rule of the majority" because the majority is too uneducated to create laws.

4 ай бұрын

Republic is on a spectrum where at one end you have republic and at the other you have monarchy. Democracy is in a spectrum where you have direct democracy at one end and dictatorship at the other. I am not a monarchist. I think Republics are better generally. And I don't think direct democracies work very well. Representative democracies are better. North Korea calls itself a republic. and it is. But that's not what makes it bad. What makes it bad is that it is a dictatorship. In other words, the US is a democratic republic which is better than North Korea which is an authoritarian republic.

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

Remember when Mitt said corporations are people too. What are we when the people have no say in government policy due to oligarchs and corporate lobbyists controling the people's representatives. Could be nether due to the people having only the power to elect those that are controlled by the few.

@cynthiameyer4448

5 ай бұрын

Then we must elect those who will NOT be controlled by big corporations.

@m5sunflower665

4 ай бұрын

Which is what is happening now sadly

@asuas3115

3 ай бұрын

We know who they are & nothing happens

@asuas3115

3 ай бұрын

We know who they are & nothing is happening we need to protest harder & be more direct with our protests

This is fast, articulate & rather fool proof sir, thank you. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi & the rest of our federal & local(for that matter) govnt’s SHOULD watch this. 🇺🇸

Invented and merged terms are not based in historical reality or facts. We have a Constitutional Republic and thats that.

2 жыл бұрын

Tell me you didn’t understand the video without telling me you didn’t understand the video.

@loosecannon7787

2 жыл бұрын

@ Im not on either side of the isle so don’t shoot the messenger as I’m simply a student of history. ‘Democratic Republic’ is a modern term invented by Democrats in an effort to legitimize their position in American politics. We have socialized attributes to our framework too, but we don’t say ‘Socialist Republic’... thats just stupid. Its either one or the other regardless if one has something in common with the other. And to the democratic republic for which it stands? Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.... Its either a Democracy or a Republic.

2 жыл бұрын

The term Democratic republic was not invented by Democrats. It had nothing to do with American politics at all. It was first used in Europe at the turn of the 20th century. and the term socialist republic not only exists, but is used by several countries. One of them is Vietnam. Democracy and Republic are not opposites and if you think they are you are misunderstanding both terms.

@loosecannon7787

2 жыл бұрын

@ All you have to do is show me where the term ‘Democracy ’ or ‘Democratic Republic’ appears within the Declaration Of Independence, Constitution, or in any states Constitution.... I’ll wait.

@loosecannon7787

2 жыл бұрын

@ I’m well aware they are not “opposites” and share attributes. If you have a Chevy and a Ford... you don’t call them a ‘chevy ford’ because they both have an engine. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Love 💕 James. ❤. His a charmer. 😊

Which would you rather be 🤔...a public or private "citizen"🤷🏿‍♂️

That rolling r, where you from?! 😆😆😆

Unconstitutional Official Acts 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement.. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. Shuttleworth vs Birmingham Ala Vol 373 p.262. A state cannot deem a constitutional right a privledge, nor can a State compel you to have a license or pay a fee for a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the U.S..

@Eddie-In-Las-Vegas

9 ай бұрын

Can I use these two examples to argue the fact that legislation may have put into law the enforcement of mandatory child support payments and its enforceable rules of failure to make these payments will result in the suspension of your drivers license, but any legislation that infringes on one's alienable constitutional right will be considered null and void.

@jimmccandless4307

9 ай бұрын

@Eddie-In-Las-Vegas The law is the law and you will have to get advice from a constitutional attorney.

@jimmccandless4307

9 ай бұрын

@@Eddie-In-Las-Vegas Marbury vs Madison : Our Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land! All statutes county or State must adhere to the laws of our Constitution! That ruling has never been overturned! Public servants, You have Sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or ->("Domestic") FISA vs Unconstitutional Official Acts Unconstitutional Official Acts16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement.. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. .An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to. settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.. Maine vs fibbado 1982 100 supreme Court 100 vol p.2502Also Owen vs city of independence Missouri : 1982 Shuttleworth vs Birmingham AlaVol 373 p.262. A state cannot deem a constitutional right a privledge, nor can a State compel you to have a license or pay a fee for a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the U.S.. 16th volume 18 £Am jur pru Section 155 Judges are sworn to support its provisions the courts are not at liberty to disregard its commands or conternants or evasion there of it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give in effect to the Constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion of the wisdom or desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences thus it is said the courts and guard against their infringement. Supreme Court reports 100 vol P.1398 vs fibbado 1982 100 supreme Court 100 vol p.2502 Also Owen vs city of independence Missouri : 1982 Officers of the court claiming to act in good faith does not relieve said officers from liability. Willful depravation or ignorance of the law cannot be claimed by a judge or officer of the law who's duty is to know the law. No judicial immunity if you violate someones constitutional rights! All officials who violate a citizens rights under Constitutional law put themselves in peril of criminal and civil recourse! As a citizen cannot claim ignorance of the law much less an official of the court. Liberty Blacks Law dictionary as used by the framers of our Great U.S. Constitution : Exemption from extraneous control. The power of will in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint , coercion, or control from other persons. Civil Liberty is the greatest amount of absolute liberty which can, in the nature of things, be equally possessed by EVERY citizen in a state. Public servants your" Fiduciary Relationship to We the People"! One who owes a legal duty to his or her principals (" We the People ") ! There should be strict care taken to verify there is no potential conflict of interest between a fiduciary and his or her principal. In most situations, there is no profit from a fiduciary relationship, unless there is express consent granted when the relationship begins. Fiduciaries are required to account for illicit profits, even if the entrustor suffered no harm. The entrustor can pursue damages as well That includes collusion by feather bedding public servants and feds to get high paying jobs from private industries ! § am jurisprudence - Title 18 section 2381. Treason. Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office § am jurisprudence Title 18 section 2382. Misprision of treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES § am jurisprudence 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government This removes these self appointed kings from office. Writ of Mandamus and Quo Warrento action for city's violating your constitutional rights as well as their city charter.. public act 230 of Public Acts which states the rights and powers section of the Constitution of the United States and the general laws of your state.In other words they are in violation of their corporate charter; their franchise. The antithesis of that is that if you are going to be going to violate our constitutional rights what we are going to do here is file for writ of mandamus and Quo Warranto. Writ of Mandamus and Quo Warrento action for city's county's, states violating constitutional rights as well as their city charter..In other words they are in violation of their corporate charter; their franchise. They promised that they would be within the Constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state. Quo Warrento : Defendant Corporation the state county or city of _______has violated provisions of the act under which it was created, and also has violated provisions of public act 230 Public Acts sec. 2.2 rights and powers of the state of your state. Defendant Corporation the city of ____accordingly has forfeited its charter and has become liable to be dissolved by the abuse of its power..

@Eddie-In-Las-Vegas

9 ай бұрын

@jimmccandless4307 thank you very much sir I have enough here for a solid argument.

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

Also, as I believe you stated, a representative republic &/or a constitutional representative republic.

@bonnierobinson8684

2 жыл бұрын

They understand this, but Trump never dud. When he openly asked for Russia's help Americans who understand this knew he was never to be trusted. Unfortunately Trump followers do not understand this and still want a king not a president! --We the people.

@Man-cv5ws

2 жыл бұрын

@@bonnierobinson8684 when Democrats put out a list of what things they want to DEREGULATE I will take you seriously.

@King31j

Жыл бұрын

No we are not. We are a Representative Democracy. www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf clyburn.house.gov/fun-youth/us-government usoas.usmission.gov/our-relationship/policy-programs/democracy/

@90AlmostFamous

Жыл бұрын

@@bonnierobinson8684 lmao last time I checked russsia took Crimea during Obama and started war with ukraine when joe Biden was in office. Seems like Russia starts wars when there is Democratic president.

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

@@bonnierobinson8684 You do only misinformation, Big Lies, and TDS mentality. The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

Unfortunately, this sounds like an explanation, but it is not. The United States at a national level is not a democracy. In the end, the correct terms for the United States government is a "Constitutional Republic" and the manner in which we elect our leaders is democratic. The US does not have a national referendum nor ballot measure system by which the populace may vote on issues. This would be needed to accurately call the US a democracy. It could be said that many US States are democracies as they do allow direct representation through referendums and ballot measures, even allowing the populus to overrule elected leaders.

Жыл бұрын

Is the argument here that the US is not a democracy because of the electoral college?

@assholery_unleashed

Жыл бұрын

@ The problem is the defining of the US under one specific term. The US is governed by the US Constitution. In the Constitution, there is a prescribed methodology for electing the President, Senators and Representatives which is democratic. But the US is not governed democratically. It is governed by laws. Citizens of the US do not get to vote on individual issues at the national level; that is true democracy. So anyone that describes the US as a democracy can only be describing the method of which the representative government is elected and not how the government works. Basically, it is taking a single aspect contained within the Constitution and using that one word to describe the whole of the US. What about the guaranteed freedoms in the Bill of Rights? Should those not be how we describe the US? Labeling the US a "Constitutional Republic" is inclusive which means we are governed by laws and within that law, there are prescribed democratic elections for representation as well as many other laws that could be equally descriptive of the US. In modern parlance, the term democracy is a synonym for a perceived free society. And that is how it is used in politics and speeches. But true democracy cannot exist in a free society because in a true democracy, the mob rules. I would never choose to live in a democracy because, a democracy without the rule of law is tyranny. And that is why the correct designation for the US is a 'Constitutional Republic'. A nation governed by laws.

Жыл бұрын

What you are describing is a direct democracy, which is not what people mean when they use democracy in modern parlance at all. The video explains this in detail. But put that aside for now. Are there any other “constitutional republics” in the world?

@Mike-ne8eb

4 ай бұрын

​@@assholery_unleashedHere's proof that we're both a federal constitutional representative republic and federal constitutional representative democracy. John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted. Chief Justice John Marshall-who helped lead the fight in the Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution-likewise defended the Constitution in that convention thus: I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom. James Wilson, Supreme Court justice at Constitutional Convention referred to the constitution as "democratical" when compared to the "monarchical and aristocratical" forms of government: "Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE…" Thomas Jefferson referred to the United States as a representative democracy in his lettee to Mr. Peter H. Wendover in March of 1815. Monticello Mar. 13. 15. Sir Your favor of Jan. 30. was recieved after long delay on the road, and I have to thank you for the volume of discourses which you have been so kind as to send me. I have gone over them with great satisfaction, and concur with the able preacher in his estimate of the character of the belligerents in our late war, and lawfulness of defensive war. I consider the war, with him, as ‘made on good advice,’ that is, for just causes, and it’s dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of kings; has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural right of expatriation, and of a common property in the ocean, and raised us to that grade in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen-souldiers, by land and by sea, the wisdom of our institutions and their observance of justice entitled us to in the eyes of the world.

Democracy is the adjective that describes the noun Republic.

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

🌎

"Guarantee." The government is prohibited from doing things by law. The means to seek and actually exact redress when the government violates the rights of the most insignificant individual exists and in fact actually does happen more regularly in the US than you may think. That's not to say it shouldn't be occuring more. A right without remedy is no right at all. If the majority just says whatever individual for no proven legitimate cause should be stripped of rights they can do it in a democracy. Try sueing the government when in the right in almost any other nation. Your chance of winning is practically non-existent.

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

The video is very well done, and the main points seem right to me. But I have some more quibbles. As to 4:15. From my knowledge, the term democracy, from its beginnings in English (1570s), included as the primary sense the notion of rule by the people, including both representational rule and direct democracy. Madison is stipulating that he, in the next few paragraphs, will be using democracy in the sense of “pure democracy,” explaining this to mean direct democracy. The Founding Fathers shied away from the word “democracy,” not because at that time it meant direct democracy, it didn’t, but because they wanted to detach themselves as much as possible from the idea of direct democracy, one subset of the term democracy. Note that Jefferson and Madison co-founded the Democratic-Republican Party. They were well aware that “democracy,” in general use, did not mean direct democracy. At 0:26, you clarify the term republic in terms of the original meaning of res publica -- affairs of the public -- and you state that it is used to indicate that the government is not a monarchy. This is true. But already in the classical times the word respublica meant rule by the people through representation, or essentially a representational democracy. And that is certainly the case with the term “republic” in modern period -- “"state in which supreme or executive power rests in the people via representatives chosen by citizens entitled to vote," c. 1600, from French république (15c.), from Latin respublica (ablative republica) "the common weal, a commonwealth, state, republic..."” So, while it is a quibble, I don’t agree that autocratic regimes or one-party states claiming to be republics are indeed republics (5:18). Rather they are abusing language to try to claim legitimacy (somewhat like Newspeak in 1984). Common examples combine the terms “democratic” and “republic”: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, The German Democratic Republic, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, The People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, The Democratic Republic of Vietnam. These are neither democratic nor republics.

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment. Your point about dictatorships and republics is well taken.

Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive, it is possible to be both as the USA clearly shows. It also possible to be a republic without being a democracy e.g. China or one can be a democracy without being a republic e.g. Great Britain. And the of course there are countries like Saudi Arabia which is neither a democracy nor a republic.

I feel like the USA was supposed to be its own form of government.

So....we are both.

8 ай бұрын

yes

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

Really, it's not. The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

@Mike-ne8eb

3 ай бұрын

Yes. It is most accurate to describe the United States as both a federal constitutional representative republic and federal constitutional representative democracy.

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

@@Mike-ne8eb except there no mention of democracy in the Constitution of the USA, none, for the Founding Fathers rejected democracy as being self destructive, those that want a democracy just ignore the laws of the Constitutional Republic, for they think it's just a piece of paper that just get in the way of what they what the USA to be.

The difference. Liberty or tyranny.

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind". - Thomas Jefferson

There were "the people" and there where the plebs. And even below that, there were the slaves. The people were - and still are - those who had the money to "own". Why should anybody else be given rights to rule ?

Democracy on a micro scale at a local level, republic in a macro scale.

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

A term I like to describe our political system comes from French political scientist Dimitri Courant: “representational electocracy” as opposed to “representative democracy”. We’re clearly not a democracy: political power is, officially at least, in the hands of elected representatives. It’s a form of oligarchy (power of a few) which can be called electocracy. The representatives are obviously not “representative” in that they do not paint a representative image of society, else society would be made of old rich people, mostly men. But the election relies on an ideal (or a myth) of representation: it is “representational”. “Representational electocracy”

@King31j

Жыл бұрын

This is why we are called a Representative Democracy, as opposed to true democracy. www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

@RalfAnodin

Жыл бұрын

@@King31j I just think the term representative democracy is not accurate, because the system is not really representative, and certainly not a democracy. When US conservatives push the idea that “we’re a Republic, not a Democracy” the honesty and realism is at least fresh to hear. What’s problematic to me is that they’re satisfied with that. The US political system, especially the Federal one, could certainly be more democratic and most people would benefit from it.

@DrSanity7777777

9 ай бұрын

​@@RalfAnodinBased on the 1787 national population, each House Member in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791) represented 30,000 citizens. Today, members of the U.S. House of Representatives each represent a portion of their state known as a Congressional District, which averages 700,000 people.

@RalfAnodin

9 ай бұрын

@@DrSanity7777777 Whether there is 30000 or 700000 people per electoral district does matter but anyhow people’s interest do not only reflect in where they live, in every community there are a deep variety of conflicting interests. Hence single member districts are anyhow a very poor form of electoral representation, as is any mandate where a single person is elected (governor, president, etc.) Multi-member districts with proportional representation are a little less terrible at representing citizens, hence why countries with this system have higher trust in their institutions (Nordic, Benelux and German-speaking countries, Ireland and New Zealand).

@DrSanity7777777

9 ай бұрын

@RalfAnodin I agree with the idea of multiple representatives per district, but one vote does indeed have less clout when a district has a larger population. I would like to see expansion in all three branches of the U.S. government. Benjamin Franklin thought that the U.S. government should have three presidents.

This sounds like a very narrow view of history, one centered around US history at the expense of case studies of actual Republics and Democracies simpliciter. This is a shame, because going through both the Athenian Democracy's system and the Roman Republic's system would have helped this content creator understand the significant differences between the two systems, as well as the overall irrelevance of the historical broadening of use of these two words when it comes to actually defining or identifying the particular form of a given system of government. Instead, focusing on etymologies and typical _Roman national_ talking points predictably led to the widely popular misunderstandings that have become synonymous with American education abroad. By the way, the opinions of 18th century intellectuals, about political systems that far predated them, that they barely studied and, instead, clearly read things from people who claimed to have studied them, are basically utterly unnecessary to understand the subject matter. Dare I say, these opinions needlessly muddy the waters and consistently misrepresent what those systems of government were actually like in their maiden forms.

Жыл бұрын

That’s because this video is explicitly aimed at an American audience. Because insisting that one cannot be both a democracy and a republic is not a common talking point elsewhere that I’ve seen. But if it is I’d love to know who uses it.

I'm no president... but if I were, my first executive order would be to consider another Amendment: To disallow any state/FEDERAL [EDIT] and/or law and/or appointed agency/PRIVATE ENTITY [EDIT] that goes against the United States Constitutions' "Bill Of Rights" in any way, shape, form; We The People does not mean 'We Only The Rich, Powerful'... but we can assume, can't we?

@achinthmurali5207

3 ай бұрын

Do you have an example of any state agency or law that follows against the bill of rights?

@littledogsbigdogs1637

3 ай бұрын

@@achinthmurali5207 example? FBN is my first example... I don't want to write a dissertation on your reply... but yes... I know of a few examples for sure... check out the opposition of FBN and Harry Jacob Anslinger ... and the US 18th Amendment + ... [edit] oops ... that would be an example of a Federal agency... I wasn't just meaning state alone though ... lol

Doesn't matter what they call it, as Dan Smoot reminds us, the language has been subverted ...

United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic with a federal presidential system. So in a way it’s democratic but above that, still a constitutional federal republic. The power of the president and the political class all over the federation are to be bound and limited by the constitution. This to ensure that no federal faction in the future run amok. If a federal faction/ political faction where to run amok and dissregard the constitution the the citizens need to put this faction down, by force if so need be. To be able to do so they need the right to free speech and right to arm them selfes. In contentious times like today, US public should rally to this one very special constitutional document as a safeguard against total collaps. Without it US would already been in open civil war by now, not a joke.

Жыл бұрын

You think that the Constitution prevents civil war because it has limits on political power?

@TehMinTzHD

Жыл бұрын

@ yes because certain rights are protected and people are content

Жыл бұрын

@@TehMinTzHD so why did it not prevent the US Civil War given it was the same Constitution?

@TehMinTzHD

Жыл бұрын

@ no it protects the people that what to be left alone from the crazed lefties

Жыл бұрын

in other words, not only did you not understand the video, you also didn't understand your own argument since the Constitution obviously did not prevent the civil war and "crazed lefties" had nothing to do with the Constitution either.

In the beginning, we were both. But now we're neither

@VictorAvera

3 ай бұрын

Nope. The Constitution’s Article IV requires every state of the Union to be a republic. Article IV, Section 4 commands: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”.

This is somewhat good. Yes, there is loads of non-sense, even from so-called "professors," cliaming that our system is not democratic. I want to make a few quibbles, however. 2:02 "... one needs far less knowledge to choose the best representative possible, than one would need to enact the best possible policy. The Founding Fathers knew this , which is why they were so against the idea of democracy." The basis here can be discussed in terms of what Madison says in Federalist Papers no. 10, where he clearly indicates the main reason to be the fear of faction and while he does indicate the solution in terms of representation, it is not due to the representatives having more knowledge. In fact it isn’t about knowledge at all, but about acting for the interests of the whole rather than the faction. And he doesn’t think the representatives as individuals are necessarily more capable of that. Rather, they are controlled by the large base of voters. Check Federalist no. 10 and see if I’m not right. I’m not sure what sources the speaker has based his claims on.

3 ай бұрын

I think that's true about Madison. But in this quote, I was referring to a broader segment of quotes from the founding fathers who usually thought there needed to be representation rather than people directly carrying out policy and usually because people would not have enough education or be "too passionate." Such as “It always has been, and will continue to be, my earnest desire to learn and to comply, as far as is consistent, with the public sentiment; but it is on great occasions only, and after time has been given for cool and deliberate reflection, that the real voice of the people can be known.” George Washington, Letter to Edward Carrington, May 1, 1796 “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 15, December 1, 1787 “It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” Alexander Hamilton, Speech to Congress, June 21, 1788 “Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow - but the people will be right at last.” George Washington, Letter to Marquis de Lafayette, July 25, 1785 Hamilton in particular was annoyed because of Rhode Island, whose increased democratic character made it have bad tax policy and had a terrible inflation problem.

@timhuson4800

3 ай бұрын

@ Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to get this information, and I'll integrate it. Maybe reply later if I have some thoughts.

The problem with BOTH words is that decisions, sometimes really tough decisions have to be made. Whether each individual citizen can decide through voting on say public referendums or each individual citizen chooses a representative, in good faith, to do this for you...the outcome is determined by majority rule, which is the very definition of DEMOCRACY. This, then, is the problem. It assumes that with the idea of majority rule, the majority will make the correct decisions, at least most of the time. What history has taught us, though, is that this is the farthest thing from the truth. As an example, look no further than the concept of socialism or Communism where the majority, against all sound moral and ethical principles found in the Bible, Torah, and Koran and simply put forth in the Ten Commandments, deem it perfectly acceptible to divide up the fruits of individual labor, no matter how hard OR little a specific individual works, and make the fruits of that labor LEGALLY accessible to the entirety of the sovereign society. Big tip: IT IS NOT! STEALING IS STILL STEALING NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT UP! Socialism and its offshoots are still morally and ethically wrong, even though the majority says otherwise. You cannot have either a Republic or Democratic society if the individuals of that society are collectively MORALLY BANKRUPT!

Not a representative democracy We are a representative constitutional republic.

@cosmicpowwow

Жыл бұрын

You need more education

@Kick_Rocks

Жыл бұрын

@@cosmicpowwow You need more education. I know what I'm talking about.

@cosmicpowwow

Жыл бұрын

@@Kick_Rocks just because you can make up a form of government doesn't mean its true. Not only have democracies as well as republics been vastly mentioned dating back yo ancient Greece but also this was what the founders based the constitution on. Power back to the people. Where in history has there been a constitutional form of government? I'll wait. We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic. We legislate from the constitution but the constitution is not a form of government. It's just a guideline. It was meant for interpretation based on the people of the time it's being legislated upon.

@valdavis7461

Жыл бұрын

@@Kick_Rocks You don't even read. What do you know?

@King31j

Жыл бұрын

No we are a Representative Democracy. clyburn.house.gov/fun-youth/us-government www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

The United States is a constitutional representative Republic. A democracy is The will of the popular. Ever heard the saying.. would you jump off a bridge because all your friends are doing it? Basically applies here. Our founding fathers were so brilliant as to set up a representative style of government and put checks and balances in place to keep out mob rule. We're still governed by the people but in a very different way than true democracy. Congress is more of a democratic branch of government where as each state gets Congress seats appointed in relation to the population of said state. However it is balanced out by the Senate where every stat gets 2 senators.. every state gets equal say no matter the population. What works for New York doesn't always translate in Montana. People are different with different values and our system of government is supposed to safeguard from giant population states totally overpowering smaller population states. At the root of everything is the constitution, which GUARANTEES the rights within never to be hindered. A true democracy would be mob rule. As you get into smaller governments as in state, county, and city governments it becomes more of a democratic form of government, as it should. On a local level you want more of a direct say on issues. At a national level it would be impossible for your average person to keep up on all issues and vote with a clear understanding of the repercussions of voting one way or another. As it is now, there are many people who vote for something that they do not have a clear understanding of. I have had discussions with people who voted for something and had no idea of what was really in the bill or ordinance they were sold some story by a special interest group. So basically in a democracy which ever side spends the most money on propaganda where they choose what to include or leave out or what to skew and what to be honest about... wins. That is why we vote in representatives who share your values. It becomes their full time job to study the issues and the potential outcomes of voting one way or another.

14 күн бұрын

You didn’t watch the video, did you?

WRONG!!!!! We ARE a Republic Constitution. Do not get it mixed. Do not spread lies.

Жыл бұрын

Tell me you didn’t watch the whole video without telling me you didn’t watch the whole video.

@mjolnir9855

Жыл бұрын

WRONG!!!! If you vote for representatives, then you are both.

A democracy is a vote of the people to a majority of politicians who uses majority votes for policy. And this may be bad because if the majority gets a policy wrong or even worse policy in favor of corruption, then this can cause instability in the country. Were as a true republic relies on a constitution to protect its people in a way that know one not even the government can step on anybody’s toes. This is what is real and not being taught.. I believe all forms of government can be great. But because of the possibility of corruption… The constitutional republic is the best form of government because no matter how corrupt people are I am protected by the constitution and my rights will never be infringed (taken away).

@achinthmurali5207

3 ай бұрын

And what if people decide they don’t want to respect your rights and find in the constitution what then? At least in a democracy you have the support of people to protect rights that everyone shares. In a republic you have to depend on the Goodwill of law enforcement and the hope that leaders are incorruptible in order to ensure that your rights are revered and protected. But this is a tall order.

@user-mj5bl5dy1b

3 ай бұрын

And what happens if a minority votes for a bad policy. A country run by a minority is authoritarian

@islandxdrifter128

3 ай бұрын

@@achinthmurali5207 I just said all forms of government are good. You seem to mis understand my point. Let me repeat my self so you don’t get confused. All forms of government is good… even dictators and communists are all good… that being said the reason why those forms of government don’t work is because people are not worthy to rule.. if you think there really are honest people to rule or run our government you are delusional. Maybe you should wake up and see the chaos in the world happens for a reason… we live in a society that has an abundance and can definitely help people. We don’t have to have homelessness or poverty. But we do.. the only problem is corrupt people People are not worthy and because of that the republic is the best form of government. History speaks for itself… let me guess you were not paying attention in history. In case you weren’t let me give you an example on history… The fall of Rome… Rome rose to be a great country because it was founded as a republic. And then Democracy came along and ruined Ancient Rome. It’s not about respecting my rights. It’s really about creating a boundary that you can’t cross no matter if you like me or not. Go back to school And learn something. I say that with respect and not as an insult. People should seek knowledge.

Repeat after me...Constitutional Republic. Democracy is no where in the Founding documents. Ben Franklin...."It's a Republic...if we can keep it."

10 күн бұрын

You didn’t watch the video, did you?

And to the republic, for which it stands. One nation under God, sound familiar

@Mike-ne8eb

3 ай бұрын

Yup it's both a republic and democracy

Interesting video, but would have been more effective if you had not insulted the part of your audience in the first minute.

5 ай бұрын

Point taken. If you notice, the video is very old. I had a very specific audience in mind when I made it and didn't realize it would become so popular. Since then I've learned to tone down those sorts of comments.

Close but no cigar....I have my Constitutional equal Rights that shall not be denied nor impinged upon regardless of majority rule

11 ай бұрын

Majority rule can certainly change your constitutional rights. They can put an amendment or change the Supreme court. There’s a reason why black people had few rights even after being freed from slavery.

Sorry, I disagree. If you know your history, Plato, a Greek wrote a book called "The Republic" long before the Romans had a republic. Plato is the first known use of the word Republic. Plato coined it, long before the Romans. thus from the Greeks from 2500 years ago. The word for Democracy also came from the Greek-states around 2,500 years ago. There meaning was simple for nearly 2400 years. A Republic in order to vote you had to have a special qualification. This could be a certain level of education, a certain level of wealth, or with the United States, you had to be a white male who owned property. In the United States in the earliest years you could not vote unless you were a white male and owned property. Thus in the beginning, we were a true Republic. Democracy meant to vote your only qualification was that you were a legal citizen. First the US gave the vote to white males who didn't own property. Next the US gave the vote to black males. Finally, just after World War I, we gave the vote to women. With that we became a Democracy in the meaning of the word as used for roughly 2,400 years. Holland, iirc, was the first Democracy in that before the US, they allowed every legal citizen to vote. And they called themselves a Democracy. This was the meaning in Europe. I'm elderly. I followed the McCarthy hearings in the newspapers back in the early 1950's. What I noticed was that with the rise of Communism, some Americans started to change the meaning of the word Republic and the word Democracy from it's meaning for over 2400 to meaning Republic good and Democracy bad. Even in Europe some defined Democracy as mob rule. It could be. But you had mob rule with the Communist takeover in Russia following World War I. They were not a Democracy. At one point, only members of the Communist party could vote. Thus the Communist were a Republic in the old Greek sense of the only voters had a special qualification. they were members of the Communist party. It's sad to see people change the meanings of words after 2,500 years for their political purposes. It was once simple in reality. If you had to have a special qualification to vote, then a Republic or you only had to be a legal citizen to vote, then Democracy. Either Republic or Democracy could be good or bad. Both were Representative forms of government in we elect Representatives instead of every voter voting on every issue. Both can be Constitutional. The Dutch, with the first Democracy, as they called themselves, had a Constitution. The total changing of the meaning of the words after 2,500 years is closely related to the rise of Communism. That this person is unaware that Plato is the first known example of the word Republic in human history tells me, he is probably smart but doesn't have all the facts.

2 ай бұрын

Plato did not coin the word republic. He called his book Πολιτεία, Politeia. The Romans translated that to Latin as De Republica, which is where our word comes from.

I don't think this is the best video or explanation on this subject. Pass. We are being constantly forced-fed how we are a Democracy. Constitutional Republic barely gets mentioned anymore and it is not OK!

Жыл бұрын

Tell me you didn’t understand the video without telling me you didn’t understand the video.

@rossadew4033

Жыл бұрын

@ You're correct. I do not stand under your video! Like many others I see commenting here... But keep up with your petty repiles! I'm sure it will make your content stand out from all the rest of countless collage-like videos that are generated for god knows who here on KZread. Most people are fed up with the word spin and simply swipe on to the next clutter untill we find a true gem (which are getting really scarce). Good luck blabbing on about some other BS!

Жыл бұрын

@@rossadew4033 this comment is quite illuminating because a) you think it's petty to point out what you yourself admit and b) because you think that I'm doing this for the views or something. But I'll summarize the point of the video. Democracy and Republic are not opposites or even in a political continuum. Things can be both Democracies and Republics or Democracies and not Republics or Republics and not Democracies. To think they are in a political continuum is to fundamentally misunderstand both terms.

@rossadew4033

Жыл бұрын

@ Thx for the summary. There, you see! Didn't need that long-winded video after all. Just like I said... Pass! And since it seems you still don't get what the issue is, let me repeat it in other words: Not only that people don't get the complexity of the political nature of current goverments, (the whole republic vs. democracy debacle...) but the bigger problem is that there is constant talk of democracy when, at the same time, the concept of a republic is getting more and more obscured... Anyway. I got other things to do that to beat this dead horse so... thx for playing and good luck with your stuff!

Жыл бұрын

It’s not getting obscured. You just don’t understand it. Which is why it seems that way to you.

North Korea is a Democracy and that's all you need to know about That.

4 ай бұрын

North Korea is not a Democracy. It's a dictatorship. But it is a Republic.

The founding father’s handed us a constitutional republic, not a democracy, so don’t go mixing words and making things mean what they do not mean! Ps. We were never supposed to have a two party system.

6 ай бұрын

I’m not mixing words. I explained why there’s confusion on the subject.

I'm sorry but no amount of word play will make The United States a democratic republic. The United States of America is a constitutional republic that has a democratic process baked in,in order to elect representatives for the people ruled by law.

Жыл бұрын

That’s exactly what a democratic republic is. So we agree.

@josemanrique458

Жыл бұрын

@ no we don't, your definition is incorrect and would not hold up in a court of law.

Жыл бұрын

@@josemanrique458 what is the difference, according to you between this constitutional republic and a democratic republic?

@cosmicpowwow

Жыл бұрын

Um we are a representative democracy

@valdavis7461

Жыл бұрын

@@josemanrique458 We're both a federal constitutional representative democracy AND a federal constitutional republic. The founding fathers saw the United States as a representative democracy and I've got proof. I can provide quotes from the framers if you wish to see them.

Wrong. Sorry, rome was a democracy, Athens was a republic. Where each man had to cast their vote. In rome your vote was represented by your lands lord or whatever. Democracy is power derived from animalistic ownership and tribal loyalty. Slaves were represented by their masters and not themselves. In the proto usa South, the votes were restricted to the few and counted with the weight of the many. But now we're ready to shed that ball and chain! Populus! The people will have back their land and rights and communities can come together to regulate their land under the constitution. Regulatory committies agencies and beauroughs are clogging the system for the benefit of the elites. Tldr: democracy is elite ruling class knows better than filthy commoners. Republic is everyone represents themselves and therefore has a voice.

You cannot be democratic and a republic democracy means majority rule. One person one vote.

3 ай бұрын

That is not what it means. Simple majority rule.

Democratic Republic?

4 ай бұрын

right

All republics are democracies but all democracies are not republics. Remember Civics Class !

5 ай бұрын

That is not true. There are republics which are not democracies (North Korea, Iran etc). And there are democracies which are not Republics (UK, Sweden)

A republic is to protect us from democracy.

15 күн бұрын

And what is a democracy?

@sidengland6302

15 күн бұрын

Mob rule.

15 күн бұрын

People say that a lot. Do you mean when majorities elect someone or something else?

@sidengland6302

14 күн бұрын

When the majority elects someone to rob for them.

14 күн бұрын

When the majority elects someone to rob for them? What does that mean exactly? If I had to guess, you mean when majorities elect people that raise taxes. If that’s not what you mean, let me know. But if that is what you mean, then there has never been any country with elections that has not been a democracy at one point or another. And whatever republics might have existed, they have never prevented democracy from happening.

You missed the 2 most important facts. First off not just Republic but constitutional Republic 2. Constitutional Republic is bound by constitutional laws where a democracy is not.

Жыл бұрын

Not sure what the rationale is here. Do you think that democracies don’t have constitutions? Or do you think that they do but somehow the government doesn’t have to follow its constitution.

@jeremyunderhill3203

Жыл бұрын

@ also you will hear in the video a constitutional Republic is about individual liberty democracy is universal equality no individual liberty

Жыл бұрын

@@jeremyunderhill3203 that is not true, the video says no such thing. People can see for themselves.

@jeremyunderhill3203

Жыл бұрын

@ bullshit that was a teaching video from 1966 that's what they actually used to teach before all this woke,CRT, and social justice bullshit.

Жыл бұрын

I just realized that you were saying that the video you posted, not mine, is what was claiming that a constitutional republic is about individual liberty and democracy is about equality. But do tell, who are these democracies you speak of that have no constitutions? or that have majority elections where their governments can do as they please? I know of none.

Let me solve this problem for you. We are a Democratic Constitutional Republic.

@Mike-ne8eb

4 ай бұрын

Here's proof that we're both a federal constitutional representative republic and federal constitutional representative democracy. John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted. Chief Justice John Marshall-who helped lead the fight in the Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution-likewise defended the Constitution in that convention thus: I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom. James Wilson, Supreme Court justice at Constitutional Convention referred to the constitution as "democratical" when compared to the "monarchical and aristocratical" forms of government: "Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE…" Thomas Jefferson referred to the United States as a representative democracy in his lettee to Mr. Peter H. Wendover in March of 1815. Monticello Mar. 13. 15. Sir Your favor of Jan. 30. was recieved after long delay on the road, and I have to thank you for the volume of discourses which you have been so kind as to send me. I have gone over them with great satisfaction, and concur with the able preacher in his estimate of the character of the belligerents in our late war, and lawfulness of defensive war. I consider the war, with him, as ‘made on good advice,’ that is, for just causes, and it’s dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of kings; has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural right of expatriation, and of a common property in the ocean, and raised us to that grade in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen-souldiers, by land and by sea, the wisdom of our institutions and their observance of justice entitled us to in the eyes of the world.

Had to comment and just say ur plain wrong we are a constitutional republic with voting written into the constitution we are not both we are a Republic that believes in democracy "And for the Republic for which I stand"

8 ай бұрын

What, according to you, is the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic?

@James-gv6wl

8 ай бұрын

@ depends on what's in the constitution of the republic at that point but it doesn't make it the same and it doesn't make the US both

8 ай бұрын

So are there any other constitutional republics in the world besides the US according to you?

@James-gv6wl

8 ай бұрын

@ Yes Germany and Singapore are technically constitutional republics because they have a constitution that dictates the rules of their governance and this ain't according to me this information is readily available on the internets

8 ай бұрын

Ok, so as long as a country has a constitution that’s what makes it a constitutional republic?

Sad we live in a Democracy HYPOCRISY!!!

Capitalism Republic System = Republic with out Democracy ---> Rules the people Socialism Republic System = Republic with out Democracy ---> Rules the people Democratize Republic System = Republic with Democracy ---> Serves the people

To those who say we're not a democracy, but a republic, you're wrong. We're both. We're a federal constitutional representative democracy AND a federal constitutional republic. Constitutional: Our system of government is considered constitutional, because the power exercised by the people and their representatives is bound by the constitution and the broader rule of law. Federal: Our government is also a federal system, since power is shared between a national government, representing the entire populace, and regional and local governments. We exercise our political power in a different way: by voting in elections to choose our representatives. That’s representative democracy. The Constitution does not use the term “democracy.” It’s true. But John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Marshall all used the word. These scholars understood representative democracy - the American variety - to be democracy all the same. John Adams referred to the US as a representative democracy in 1794 in "The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, volume 6" on page 19. "No determinations are carried, it is true, in a simple or representative democracy, but by consent of the majority of the people or their representatives." Thomas Jefferson referred to the US as a representative democracy in his "Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies" in Letter CXXIL to Mr. Wendover on March 13th, 1815: "I consider the war, with him, as 'made on good advice,' inasmuch, as it as exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy, compared with the misrule of Kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural rights of expatriations, and of a common property in the ocean, and raised us to that grace in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen soldiers, by land and by sea, the wisdom of our institutions and their observance of justice, entitled us in the eyes to in the eyes of the world." In addition, Noah Webster in 1785, St. George Tucker in 1803 edition of Blackstone, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by referring to the 3 forms of government as "monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical." Chief Justice John Marshall defended the Constitution by describing it as implementing "democracy" (as opposed to "despotism") We're also a republic because every state is autonomous and elects representatives to legislate in the interests of the people. I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom. (John Marshall) Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE….(James Wilson) Sir William Blackstone, who was much read and admired by the framers, likewise used "democracy" to include republics: "Baron Montesquieu lays it down, that luxury is necessary in monarchies, as in France; but ruinous to democracies, as in Holland. With regard therefore to England, whose government is compounded of both species, it may still be a dubious question, how far private luxury is a public evil …." Holland was of course a republic, and England was compounded of monarchy and government by elected representatives; Blackstone was thus labeling such government by elected representatives as a form of "democrac[y]."

This is confusing asf

6 күн бұрын

What do you find confusing?

Why don’t you ask what is the difference between blue and warm? They’re points on different axes. The US is *both* a constitutional republic and a representative democracy.

5 ай бұрын

Did you not watch the video?

*is it really that hard to have a pure democracy today, like sweden? if every Monday people all know from age 18 you have to vote on all issues, the full 8h, just as a responsibility of being citizens?* the big things would never change much, and corruption would be removed, as well as people would have to be involved in all matters rather than oblivious. enough people read, and have technology now, that i dont see why we use the old systems.

@wandameadows5736

3 жыл бұрын

Why do you still not understand what a Democracy is & WHY America chose a Republic? If your concern is corruption you wouldn't want an even BIGGER FEDERAL CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENMT. The idea of a Republic is to have local representation, Representation that RELATES TO YOUR & UNDERSTAND YOURE ISSUES.

@JonnyRoboto

2 жыл бұрын

i agree i would like to see this implemented. a country where the people are not irresponsible in their own way of not involving themselves in the business of what it means to shape a country by the power of the people

@thejils1669

2 жыл бұрын

The problem with BOTH words is that decisions, sometimes really tough decisions have to be made. Whether each individual citizen can decide through voting on say public referendums or each individual citizen chooses a representative, in good faith, to do this for you...the outcome is determined by majority rule, which is the very definition of DEMOCRACY. This, then, is the problem. It assumes that with the idea of majority rule, the majority will make the correct decisions, at least most of the time. What history has taught us, though, is that this is the farthest thing from the truth. As an example, look no further than the concept of socialism or Communism where the majority, against all sound moral and ethical principles found in the Bible, Torah, and Koran and simply put forth in the Ten Commandments, deem it perfectly acceptible to divide up the fruits of individual labor, no matter how hard OR little a specific individual works, and make the fruits of that labor LEGALLY accessible to the entirety of the sovereign society. Big tip: IT IS NOT! STEALING IS STILL STEALING NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT UP! Socialism and its offshoots are still morally and ethically wrong, even though the majority says otherwise. You cannot have either a Republic or Democratic society if the individuals of that society are collectively MORALLY BANKRUPT!

@valdavis7461

Жыл бұрын

@@wandameadows5736 We're both a federal constitutional representative democracy AND a federal constitutional republic. I can give you proof directly from the founding fathers.

Too political

Жыл бұрын

This is my favorite KZread comment on my channel, deeming an explanation of political regimes too political 👌👌👌

Constitutional republic! Not republic!

3 ай бұрын

Which republics lack a constitution?

@radioreactivity3561

3 күн бұрын

Not many. Only israel comes to mind.

Sigh...

Nice try

Revisionism at its finest.

Жыл бұрын

I don’t think you’re using the word correctly.

@Mike-ne8eb

Жыл бұрын

In what way is it revisionism?

@SaraK_69

Жыл бұрын

Agreed, we are not the People's Republic like China. Instead we are a Representative Democracy. We are NOT a republic.

@puckf17

11 ай бұрын

Well as it stands now the very thing he points to as "too complex for peasants to understand"- WAR -which profits the very people who presumably are smarter, has and awful track record. That and corporate media turned western nations into profiteering first class global murderers. Result is the suffering of people in E Palestine Ohio hung to dry. It's the problems over there your disaster is not important. Little more than a shrug from elected officials whose aims do not seem to represent the very people they were meant to serve. It was a little better (not enough) when smart citizens followed investigative journalists like Whitney Webb, Seymour Hersh, Cory Morningstar etc... Wrecking the economy & creating exhausted disheartened citizenry is the final nail in the coffin.

Trump for prison 👍

There are big difference from democracy and republic, on democracy you can work and live very well, and very well, I really love ❤️ ❤️❤️ democracy but not republic, republic is a theorism and killers, I definitely to prefer live on democracy,

@omikredarhcs8221

2 жыл бұрын

move

@nancyk6726

Жыл бұрын

You sound just like the democrats who are hell bent on turning our Republic into a mob ruled democracy.

Wrong

100 supreme Court 100 vol p.2502 Also Owen vs city of independence Missouri : 1982 Shuttleworth vs Birmingham Ala Vol 373 p.262. A state cannot deem a constitutional right a privledge, nor can a State compel you to have a license or pay a fee for a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the U.S.. Unconstitutional Official Acts 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement.. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. Marbury vs Madison : Our Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land! All statutes county or State must adhere to the laws of our Constitution! That ruling has never been overturned! 16th volume 18 £Am jur pru Section 155 Judges are sworn to support its provisions the courts are not at liberty to disregard its commands or conternants or evasion there of it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give in effect to the Constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion of the wisdom or desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences thus it is said the courts and guard against their infringement. Oath of office: Public servants, You have Sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or ->("Domestic") The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to. settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. § am jurisprudence - Title 18 section 2381. Treason. Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office § am jurisprudence Title 18 section 2382. Misprision of treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. Eliminates mob rule Liberty Blacks Law dictionary as used by the framers of our Great U.S. Constitution : Exemption from extraneous control. The power of will in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint , coercion, or control from other persons. Civil Liberty is the greatest amount of absolute liberty which can, in the nature of things, be equally possessed by EVERY citizen in a state.

PLEASE!! PLEASE!! Tell this to the democrats!!

Marbury vs Madison : Our Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land! All statutes county or State must adhere to the laws of our Constitution! That ruling has never been overturned! 16th volume 18 £Am jur pru Section 155 Judges are sworn to support its provisions the courts are not at liberty to disregard its commands or conternants or evasion there of it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give in effect to the Constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion of the wisdom or desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences thus it is said the courts and guard against their infringement. Oath of office: Public servants, You have Sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or ->("Domestic") Democracy (mob rule) is only promoted to interject socialist Communism to subvert our Constitutional rule of law our Sovereign Constitutional Republic.! Example of Democracy mob rule Subversion and violation of Oath of Office.. Natural Rights - Patriot Act with Judge Andrew Napolitano -Prt 1 of 3 www.bitchute.com/video/9auGQlihctZa/ Natural Rights - Patriot Act with Judge Andrew Napolitano -Prt 2 of 3 www.bitchute.com/video/pmobhbtIoRli/ Natural Rights - Patriot Act with Judge Andrew Napolitano -Prt 3 of 3 www.bitchute.com/video/5IfJZImR5i1x/ Nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence is the word democracy written nor is it mentioned! 👍 if you have read the FEDERALIST papers you would know that the framers of our Great Constitution where. deliberately excluding mob rule ( democracy ). As we do live in a Constitutional Republic! Constitutional Laws that govern all aspects and ("limits government intrusion") into the lives of We the People Owen vs city of independence Missouri : 1982 Officers of the court claiming to act in good faith does not relieve said officers from liability. Willful depravation or ignorance of the law cannot be claimed by a judge or officer of the law who's duty is to know the law. No judicial immunity if you violate someones constitutional rights! All officials who violate a citizens rights under Constitutional law put themselves in peril of criminal and civil recourse! As a citizen cannot claim ignorance of the law much less an official of the court. When public servants start acting like Dictators instead of Neighbors its time for them to be fired! Public servants you are not LAW Makers you are Sworn to defend existing Laws ! We the People for the People ! "We the People" meaning everyone of us are guaranteed Constitutional rights doesn't matter what or who you are! 👍 Typical result of Subversion of our Constitutional rule of law our Republic Natural Rights - Patriot Act with Judge Andrew Napolitano -Prt 2 of 3 www.bitchute.com/video/pmobhbtIoRli/ Natural Rights - Patriot Act with Judge Andrew Napolitano -Prt 3 of 3 www.bitchute.com/video/5IfJZImR5i1x/ Watch "Republic vs (mob rule) Democracy" on KZread kzread.info/dash/bejne/fXqM16mCoNbKdZM.html Yuri Bezmenov (Importance of Religion)" on KZread kzread.info/dash/bejne/X5ecj6NqkdTKlMo.html Watch "Yuri Bezmenov - The Art of Subversion and Demoralization.flv" on KZread kzread.info/dash/bejne/oGiO2rFueZDZZKg.html