The issue is NOT democracy. A direct democracy can ALSO ruin your life.

That is why the American founders rejected the idea of a democracy.

A republic has representatives, who (in theory) will be more level-headed, which should reduce the mob mentality of a democracy.

But they didn't stop there. They created not just a republic, but a constitutional republic.

Greece (Athens) had the first democracy.

Rome had the first republic.

Amerca had the first constitutional republic.

The Constitution is a LIMIT on what even those representatives can do, and those limitations are imposed by the People, so as to protect their natural ("fundamental" or "god-given") rights.

The Bill of Rights has a Preamble. Most people don't even know it exists, much less have ever read it. But reading it makes it quite clear what the intent of the founders was:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

The problem is, We the People, over the course of several generations, have NOT been keeping them accountable.

We have let them slide.

Apathy is part of "democracy," too.

This is why the Brunson case is so interesting.

Oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Does it MEAN something ... or not?

The issue is NOT democracy. A direct democracy can ALSO ruin your life.

That is why the American founders rejected the idea of a democracy.

A republic has representatives, who (in theory) will be more level-headed, which should reduce the mob mentality of a democracy.

But they didn't stop there. They created not just a republic, but a constitutional republic.

Greece (Athens) had the first democracy.

Rome had the first republic.

Amerca had the first constitutional republic.

The Constitution is a LIMIT on what even those representatives can do, and those limitations are imposed by the People, so as to protect their natural ("fundamental" or "god-given") rights.

The Bill of Rights has a Preamble. Most people don't even know exists, much less have ever read it. But reading it makes it quite clear what the intent of the founders was:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

The problem is, We the People, over the course of several generations, have NOT been keeping them accountable.

We have let them slide.

Apathy is part of "democracy," too.

This is why the Brunson case is so interesting.

Oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Does it MEAN something ... or not?

The issue is NOT democracy. A direct democracy can ALSO ruin your life.

That is why the American founders rejected the idea of a democracy.

A republic has representatives, who (in theory) will be more level-headed, which should reduce the mob mentality of a democracy.

But they didn't stop there. They created not just a republic, but a constitutional republic.

Greece (Athens) had the first democracy.

Rome had the first republic.

Amerca had the first constitutional republic.

The Constitution is a LIMIT on what even those representatives can do.

The Bill of Rights has a Preamble. Most people don't even know exists, much less have ever read it. But reading it makes it quite clear what the intent of the founders was:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

The problem is, We the People, over the course of several generations, have NOT been keeping them accountable.

We have let them slide.

Apathy is part of "democracy," too.

This is why the Brunson case is so interesting.

Oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Does it MEAN something ... or not?

The issue is NOT democracy. A direct democracy can ALSO ruin your life.

That is why the American founders rejected the idea of a democracy.

A republic has representatives, that are supposedly supposed to be more level-headed, which in theory reduces the mob mentality of a democracy.

But they didn't stop there. They created a constitutional republic, not just a republic.

The Constitution is a LIMIT on what even those representatives can do.

The Bill of Rights has a Preamble. Most people don't even know exists, much less have ever read it. But reading it makes it quite clear what the intent of the founders was:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

The problem is, We the People, over the course of several generations, have NOT been keeping them accountable.

We have let them slide.

Apathy is part of "democracy," too.

This is why the Brunson case is so interesting.

Oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Does it MEAN something ... or not?