This is why we are a republic instead of a democracy (majority rule). Our representatives have the power of the purse and law. They need to stay in control, and we need to make sure that they do their jobs well.
But even our Republic's laws and purse are subject to our inalienable rights, given to us by God. Our representatives must not infringe on those rights. They have no power to do so.
Our representatives must not infringe on those rights. They have no power to do so.
Legally speaking, they have all the power to do so. It's even written into the Constitution. It can easily be argued that is not truly the power to do so, and I have done so many times, but legally, by enforcement through coercion, and a Treaty which we did not sign and for which there is no exit clause (the Constitution), they do.
This is why we are a republic instead of a democracy
We are a republic instead of a democracy because the people who created our system of government were aristocrats, and they wanted to stay that way. The Constitution has built into it explicit statements of their sovereignty over us. See the fifth amendment. It states explicitly that anyone in the military does not have any rights if the PTB so choose. And the military is not optional (questionable now, not questionable at the time). It also states explicitly that all property belongs to them at their whim.
The system was designed such that women weren't even allowed to participate at all. Most men weren't allowed to participate either. Only land owners could participate and only 6% of the population were land owners (the aristocrats or aristocrat adjacent).
That was the design of our wonderful Democratic Republic. The power remains with those who already have power. By design.
The problem with all such systems of government is that they claim sovereignty over the individual. They claim that they can make decisions on what we can or can't do. Even if we have the power to "vote them out" (which is questionable even in the most honest system), that still becomes "majority rule" and the lag time ensures those who make the rules aren't questioned for long enough to make substantial difference in the lives of the individual. Again, the problem is that they claim that they have that power AT ALL.
Every system of government that is designed such that it can lay claim to the individual is fraudulent. If adhering to the rules isn't optional (compliance is enforced by coercion, and there is no exit clause), it is a tyranny, no matter how many flowery words you add to it.
This is why we are a republic instead of a democracy (majority rule). Our representatives have the power of the purse and law. They need to stay in control, and we need to make sure that they do their jobs well.
But even our Republic's laws and purse are subject to our inalienable rights, given to us by God. Our representatives must not infringe on those rights. They have no power to do so.
Legally speaking, they have all the power to do so. It's even written into the Constitution. It can easily be argued that is not truly the power to do so, and I have done so many times, but legally, by enforcement through coercion, and a Treaty which we did not sign and for which there is no exit clause (the Constitution), they do.
We are a republic instead of a democracy because the people who created our system of government were aristocrats, and they wanted to stay that way. The Constitution has built into it explicit statements of their sovereignty over us. See the fifth amendment. It states explicitly that anyone in the military does not have any rights if the PTB so choose. And the military is not optional (questionable now, not questionable at the time). It also states explicitly that all property belongs to them at their whim.
The system was designed such that women weren't even allowed to participate at all. Most men weren't allowed to participate either. Only land owners could participate and only 6% of the population were land owners (the aristocrats or aristocrat adjacent).
That was the design of our wonderful Democratic Republic. The power remains with those who already have power. By design.
The problem with all such systems of government is that they claim sovereignty over the individual. They claim that they can make decisions on what we can or can't do. Even if we have the power to "vote them out" (which is questionable even in the most honest system), that still becomes "majority rule" and the lag time ensures those who make the rules aren't questioned for long enough to make substantial difference in the lives of the individual. Again, the problem is that they claim that they have that power AT ALL.
Every system of government that is designed such that it can lay claim to the individual is fraudulent. If adhering to the rules isn't optional (compliance is enforced by coercion, and there is no exit clause), it is a tyranny, no matter how many flowery words you add to it.