A REPUBLIC (Representative Government)

Are Students Learning that America is a Republic?

http://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2011/09/are-students-learning-america-is.html

This article caught my attention and I just had to respond. Words are important and when you start combining words such as representative (the republican form of government) and democracy (direct action by the people) you come up with something tantamount to comparing sobriety to drunkenness. This is doing severe damage to the works of our founding fathers and negating the Constitution. Of course that has been the plan since the end of the nineteenth century. Our education system continues the charade!

One of the outstanding features and chief merits of our Federal Constitution is that it provides for a strictly representative form of national government and in Article IV, Section 4, guarantees a representative form of government to each of the States.

A Republic is the standard form of government adopted by the Constitution for the nation and for the States. This is a fundamental fact, which is too frequently overlooked, resulting in much confusion.

There are just three basic forms of government. An autocracy is a form of government in which a monarch derives power through heredity and permits too little participation by the people, with a final result or reaction against tyranny. It creates the kind of condition in the world of government that would be created in the field of medicine if we were required to engage the services of a doctor whose father was our father’s doctor, whether we wanted to or not.

A republic is a form of government in which power is vested in regularly selected representatives with authority to act and decide public questions. It provides just enough participation by the people in governmental affairs and leads to orderly progress. It creates the kind of condition in the world of government that is created in the field of medicine when, in the event of our illness, we select a doctor whom we regard as qualified to treat our ailment.

A democracy is a form of government in which the people speak and act directly on public questions. It permits too much participation by the people and finally results in chaos. It creates the kind of condition in the world of government that would be created in the field of medicine if, in the event of our illness, we were to submit to a popular vote what medicine we should take and then take it regardless of the consequences.

A republic does not bring perfect condition, but it is the best form that human agency can devise. It is the golden mean between the extremes of autocracy and democracy.

The authors of the Constitution seemed to understand clearly the meaning and importance of the law of the “golden mean” and applied it effectively to the science of government. It is the middle point or degree in any quality, state, or activity, which avoids the dangers or errors of either extreme by the striking of a well-balanced medium.

In the study of any science or of any problem we can learn much by observing the laws of nature. Too little food means starvation; the proper amount of food makes for health; too much food means gluttony. Again, too little seed means meager crops; just enough seed means the best possible crops; too much seed means crops sickly from over-crowding. The application of the principle can be clearly seen by stating it graphically as follows:

EXTREME GOLDEN MEAN EXTREME
Starvation Nourishment Gluttony
Drought Moisture Flood

It is plain that not much is accomplished by discussing the value of either extreme, unless, indeed, it be to emphasize the great value of the mean. There is no sphere of activity in which the extremes are more disastrous or the mean more beneficial than in the realm of government. Some illustrations of the results are as follows:

EXTREME GOLDEN MEAN EXTREME
Autocracy Republic Democracy
Autocrats Statesmen Demagogues
Bondage Liberty License
Tyranny Justice Anarchy
Reaction Progress Chaos

The Constitution was written in a convention by selected representatives, and there is convincing evidence running all through the Constitution that the men who wrote it intended to provide for strictly representative government in the nation and in the States, as proved by the following significant provisions:

1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
2. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.
3. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in One Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican (representative) form of government.
5. The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.
6. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments… when ratified by the legislature of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof.

Thus we see that nowhere in the Constitution is there any suggestion of government through direct action, which is democracy. The Constitution provides for vesting the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in representatives. It guarantees a representative form of government to every State in the Union and provides for its ratification and amendment through representatives.

The form of government established by the Constitution is discussed in the Federalist, Numbers 10, 14, and 39, all written by James Madison. In the Federalist, Number 10, he said:

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which we I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

In the Federalist, Number 14, he wrote:

The adversaries of the new Constitution are availing themselves of the prevailing prejudice with regard to the practicable sphere of republican administration, in order to supply, by imaginary difficulties, the want of those solid objections, which they endeavor in vain to find… It seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasoning drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy the people exercise the government in person; in a republic they administer it by their representatives… Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to republic observations applicable to a democracy only.

In the Federalist, Number 39; he went on to say:

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define republic to be … a government which … is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.

In the first session of Congress, in 1789, when proposed amendments were being discussed, Representative Tucker of South Carolina proposed that Congress offer to the States for consideration an amendment “giving the people the right to instruct their representatives.”

In opposing the proposed amendment, Representative Hartley of Pennsylvania said:

Representation is the principle of our government; the people ought to have confidence in the honor and integrity of those they send forward to transact their business; their right to instruct them is a problematical subject. We have seen it attended with bad consequences both in England and America… I have known within my own time so many inconveniences and real evils arise from adopting the popular opinions of the moment, that … I hope this government will particularly guard against them, at least that they will not bind themselves by a constitutional act, and by oath, to submit to their influence; if they do, the great object which this government has been established to attain will inevitably elude our grasp on the uncertain and veering winds of popular emotion.

Representative Clymer, also of Pennsylvania, said:

Do gentlemen foresee the extent of these words? If they have a constitutional right to instruct us, it infers that we are bound by those instructions… This is a most dangerous principle, utterly destructive of all the ideas of an independent and deliberative body, which are essential requisites in the legislatures of free governments…

It is the duty of a good representative to inquire what measures are most likely to promote the general welfare, and, after he has discovered them, to give them support. Should his instructions, therefore, coincide with his ideas on any measure, they would be unnecessary; if they were contrary to the conviction of his own mind, he must be bound by every principle of justice to disregard them.

Representative James Madison, who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and later served two terms as Secretary of State and as President of the United States, said:

Suppose they instruct a representative, by his vote, to violate the Constitution; is he at liberty to obey such instructions? Suppose he is instructed to patronize certain measures, and from circumstances known to him, bit not to his constituents, he is convinced that they will endanger the public good, is he obliged to sacrifice his own judgment to them?

The proposed amendment was not submitted, a fact which indicates that Congress at that time understood clearly the importance of adhering to representative government, as provided in the Constitution and emphasized in The Federalist.

For more than a century not only the nation at large but the States also adhered closely to the convention plan of naming candidates for office, and entrusted the making, interpreting, and enforcing of the laws to the chosen representatives. Under the representative plan of procedure we made progress unparalleled in the history of government.

Toward the latter part of the nineteenth century agitation became insistent for direct primaries, the initiative, the referendum, and the recall, and many of the States have enacted legislation providing for these methods of direct action.

Direct primaries are a substitute for the delegate convention plan of nominating candidates for public office, providing for their nomination by a direct vote of the people.

The initiative is a system whereby a given number of voters may, on petition, propose a law and require the legislature to submit it to a popular vote.

The referendum is a system, which requires the reference of an act passed by the legislature to the voters for approval or rejection.

The States have gradually adopted the custom of submitting proposed State constitutions to a referendum of the people for ratification. It will be generally conceded, however, that no State has adopted a constitution so well adapted to State government as the Federal Constitution was adapted to the national government.

The recall is a system for submitting to the voters the question whether or not a public official, regularly elected for a definite term, shall be removed before the term expires, without the opportunity of a trial based on the rules of evidence.

These innovations were inspired because of charges that conventions were not naming good candidates, that the legislative bodies were enacting undesirable laws, and that public officials were frequently untrustworthy.

Unfortunately, there was much justification for these contentions, but it is extremely doubtful if the introduction of the direct action of democracy is the proper remedy, as evils resulting from the change seem greater than those, which it sought to rectify. The real remedy it would seem is to continue the plan of representative government provided by the Constitution, and to exercise greater vigilance and discretion in the selection of delegates to attend conventions for nominating candidates for executive and legislative positions.

Perhaps the point can be made clearer by way of analogy if we apply the principle of he direct action of democracy to the game of baseball. If in the game of baseball umpires were chosen by virtue of their fathers’ having been umpires, it can readily be seen that through autocracy baseball would degenerate just as hereditary government always has.

We play baseball as a republic, based on strictly representative government. The selection of the players and the umpire is generally left to those who are interested in baseball and understand the game. Players are selected because of their ability to play. The umpire is selected for his knowledge of the rules and his moral courage to make decisions in accordance with them, regardless of public clamor of the moment in the bleachers. Under these conditions, baseball as played is a wonderful game, and we have excellent players and efficient umpires, and enormous crowds are handled with little disorder.

Suppose that the method of conducting baseball should be changed and provisions were made for selecting members of the teams through direct primaries by a vote of the people in attendance at the game, or for referring the rulings of the umpire to the bleachers for decision by referendum, or for circulating a petition for the initiative to change rules of the game, or to recall the umpire or some players, it can readily be seen that chaotic conditions would result.

If the selection of the members of debating teams and football and baseball teams were left to a vote of the student body in high schools and colleges, it is not likely that championship teams would assembled.

Apply the principle of the direct action of democracy to the fields of engineering, surgery, and other activities and consider the inevitable results. Such contemplation will help us to appreciate the wisdom of the authors of the Constitution in understanding that in the plan of things great responsibility was placed upon the wise exercise of the law of selection, which is the essence of a republic.