"The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
by:
Source:
Constitution for the United States, Art. IV, 1789
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
OK, we have been talking about this for a while now, but have you noticed the 'fine print'? The US shall guarantee "every state" a republican form of government... what about the federal government -- what form shall it take?!! Let the debate continue!
 -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    ;-) yes in deedy, Archer. A lot more questions here. If the defacto national government and its criminal representatives violate their oath of office, changing only portions of the Constitution (i.e. the 16th, 17th, Amendments etc.), and continually legislate otherwise contrary to the Constitution (as by the above quote's example, the 10 Amendments, etc.) without scraping the entire document, is such lawful? The answer is an emphatic and absolute NO!!! (an otherwise criminal act can not be sanctioned by law) In a checks and balances reciprocity, if the Federal government were to ensure a 'Republican' form of government in each State, attrition would require the several States to maintain their Union in a Federal Republic (much the same concept as was formulated for the lawful tender). Again I ask of anyone reading this blog; what would you call a government where neither the majority, nor the minority can create law? A government where neither the majority nor the minority can inflict their particular prejudice on a disinterested third party? A government that holds paramount the rule of law in best administering the protection and enhancement of the individual sovereign's life, liberty, property, happiness, privacy, authority, powers, rights, privileges, etc.? A government that can not torture at its discretion nor, act in collusion with various individuals and corporations in committing crimes, then legislating ex post facto pardons for all criminal participants (including the president)? A government that could not allow the monopolization of its 'lawful tender' by way of a legal currency by an independent third party - making funny money out of thin air? A government that can not do for, or to an individual, that which can not be done morally and lawfully by an independent third party individual? A government that is based on law, not the will of the people? A government that has no rights but duties only? A government where the single individual is the king and priest, Caesar and supreme sovereign, and the government his servant? A government truly of, by and for the people? A government where its servants authority does not exceed that of the individual sovereign? A government where the representatives represent the sovereign, not the state? A government that can not or will not compel compliance, issue licences, enforce victimless crimes, commit larceny against the sovereign with impunity - including theft of the noble laborer's fruit, declare all property the alodium freehold of the state (in most part being in receivership to private bankers and foreign sovereigns) while only allowing titled stewardship to everyone else, suspend public displays of religious speech or sentiment, suspend habeas corpus, torture people for information, enforce forced ID/insurance/charity, etc., etc., etc.? Language and the words thereof are created and used by society ultimately describing that people. The meanings of words evolve/devolve over time either remaining similar (simply visualized in contemporary settings), changed to mean something entirely different, or abandon all together. Words like 'cool', 'groovy', or 'rad' explain a society's pop culture and personally lived concepts. The word, 'Republic' as was used by the founders, describes the government I detailed above. Several here on this blog have given countless examples to prove the point. Those that choose Democracy, slavery, or whatever form of tyranny best answers their desires are correct in their assertions that the world no longer uses that definition to define a Republic. Again, what would you now call it? What is the current word that describes the form of government the Founder's described as a Republic? If no one can give a new contemporary word that describes such a government, then freedom and liberty are lost to this society. In our contemporary twilight covering of concept and word definition change, we have become witting and unwitting victims of the darkness.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    It reads that the states are guaranteed it by the fed. To me that mean that the Federal government is assuring a republican form of government on the federal level for the benefit of the states. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence" This to me is a guarantee by the Fed. Not a mandate from the Fed.
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    You guys make me laugh with your twisted logic. The words mean exactly what they say and how they have been lived up to in history. No state has ever violated the republican form that is to say DEMOCRACY. Each and every state has a democratically elected government. A state dictatorship to my knowledge has never existed. The Feds guarantee a republican government which as we all know (but many fail to admit publicly) is a DEMOCRACY by actions investigations etc of the FBI into political corruption. The Constitution guarantees to the Government of the United States a government based upon itself (the constitution) without regard to any other label.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, logic has absolutely nothing to do with the here subject matter. Bloggers have here shown Supreme Court decisions, early legal dictionary(s) definitions, founder's comments, a military definition, etc. ad nauseam that define the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. It was a Democracy, feared more than a Monarchy, that the founders hoped to permanently eliminate from the several States. No logic, historical fact. Your logic, your to shallow to call germane definitions, nor Democracy defines what the founders put in place. There is a huge difference between a democratic process and a Democracy. After reading what I wrote above, can you answer the question?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Editor, if I may: The Constitution actually reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." The improper uses of today’s rules of capitalization were not improper for its day. Capitalized words, besides the proper persons, places, or things, were grammatically correct when emphasizing a word, phrase, or an idea. The fact that "Republican Form of Government" was all capitalized shows the founder's extended and expressed emphasis on the fact that we're a Republic (the ONLY guarantee the Constitution provides). As a second note, the only facade of a democracy granted by the Constitution is in the elections of the House of Representatives; no other officer granted by the original Constitution was to be elected by the "popular vote". The Waffler's of the world are ignorant to the fact that the "United States" is a federalist organization comprised of 50 sovereign and independent States, and that these States have agreed with each other to delegate certain sovereign powers to a supranational federalism to work in behalf of the States in very specific, limited, and direct powers (much like the EU). The Wafflers of the world do not understand that political "democracy" is merely a macrocosm of justifying 10 men to rape one women just because they are in the majority. The Wafflers of the world have no problem accepting that Germany, France, Italy, and Spain are justifiable in sending ambassadors and delegates to the federalist EU who are not directly elected by the people (which actually is the case), because the Wafflers of the world realize that these States are independently sovereign, and that these States have the ability of making daily decisions without putting every action to popular vote (representative democracy); however, what the Wafflers of the world fail to recognize is that California, Utah, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and every other State in the "United States" are as much sovereign States in their federalist alliance as Germany, France, Italy, and Spain are in EU! As I recently talked with John Bruton, the EU's American Ambassador and former prime minister of Ireland, concerning the difference between Republics and Democracies, he admitted to me that America was NOT, in fact, a democracy. He prided himself that the EU WAS a democracy, and so I asked him on what grounds the EU protected the sovereign rights of the participating State's and its citizens in lieu of the onslaught of the democratic majority. He responded that only by unanimous vote can there be any "semblance of protection" of the sovereignty of the States and the rights of the individual; otherwise, he said, France, Italy, and Spain (as the majority) could mount destructive legislation against Germany and its people on their whim... the unanimous vote, therefore, is absolutely necessary in a democracy to protect every State (Germany, for instance) and its citizens; otherwise, once again, the federalism is not a "democracy" but a "tyranny." The construct of our Constitution, he stated, would make a very poor democracy. If the citizens of Germany, Italy, France, or Spain have a problem with their State's chosen Representatives to the EU, then they vote out their local State officers that chose these ambassadors. As a further check-and-balance to these State ambassadors, the citizens also have elections to choose Representatives by the popular vote to councils of the EU. Mr. Bruton and I talked further about America's Republican form of Government wherein we concluded what makes America's Republic different than any other Republic or democracy were the presuppositions and assumptions that were imposed in the American political process. These presuppositions and assumptions were that each individual has "rights" from a "Creator" that cannot be alienated or imposed upon by the government, regardless of the majority rule. This assumption violated the rule of majorities, and, we both agreed, declassified America from being a "democracy." Waffler, you have no understanding as to how "the words... have been lived up to in history," because you have demonstrated that you have little to no understanding as to how they were originally meant in the first place. You further demonstrated that you have no understanding of political history or of political philosophy. Democracies, historically, have faltered, failed, and become tyrannical regimes within a maximum of one to two hundred years; however, Republics, as historically discussed by such men as Machiavelli have lasted for many many centuries. The "majority rule, all of the time" mentality is disgusting and is the absolute worst form of government contrived. Do not be so ignorant as to assume that democracy holds a monopoly on majority rule. Republican government ALSO rules according to the majority; however, our Republic presupposes that each individual has certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the majority. All you have to ask yourself in determining whether or not we're a democracy is simply this: Where do our rights come from? If they come from the majority, then they are not inalienable because the majority can alienate what they have given; the only way rights are inalienable is if a higher power granted them that is outside the scope, power, or will of the majority.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    Thanks, Logan. The correction has been made. Cheers.
     -- Editor, Liberty Quotes     
  •  
    WOW Logan, thank you
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Mike and Logan are right on today!
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    I disagree Mike that there is a difference between a democratic process and a democracy. I disagree Archer that the nominees and the ultimate President has already been chosen by the "big shots". If you believe that then you probably don't even vote yourself. So you say Logan. I disagree with your entire analysis Logan that the states are soverign. The states have never taken their soverignity as far as declaring a state King or a Dynasty or a state Dictator for Life etcetera. And the states nor the Federal Government are not soverign or democratic in one respect. Neither the states or the feds or any group of us can dissovle The Union. As some of us know and the rest of should learn, The Pledge says, "and to the republic for which it stands one nation, indivisible". So no power can dissovle the union. So you say Logan, I agree with you absolutely that a republican form of government is rule by the majority. I disagree with you that democracy takes away inalienable rights. I think you and I are on the same wave length. It is time to get over these allegianceis to words and to deal in substance. NO state has ever left, no state has ever had a dictator or a King. The feds enact and enforce voting laws to insure that the states maintain and improve a republican (that is to say a democratic) form of government.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, that may be your opinion, but it is not truth at all -- but according to you, if you can get enough people on your side to say it is true, then it is. That is the thing about republican governance -- it is based on natural law, not popular opinion. The truth cannot be voted away. Sovereignty starts with the individual, not the majority. The states are sovereign, the federal government is not, it is subservient to the People. Read the Declaration of Independence if you do not understand. We The People are the sovereigns, and the Constitution is the charter for managing the commonwealth and defending individual Liberty. The Pledge of Allegiance is not law, and indivisible means that all are governed by the same Law of the Land and none can be divided from their natural born rights. My guess is that Waffler simply goes with the crowd and would dare not rock the boat with his individuality. Dependence poisons the mind with excuses.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    "Waffler, that may be your opinion, but it is not truth at all..." If I may interject a quote here, E Archer, adding to your response to Waffler. I actually got the quote from this site. "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) Author
     -- L Wall, Anaheim Hills     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2017 Liberty-Tree.ca