slug.com slug.com

3 2

There is much more momentum for the idea of a Convention of States to amend the Constitution. Should that happen I have a few suggestions for proposed amendments.

  1. Congress has no authority to delegate any of the powers granted to Congress in Article I.
  2. In matters of grave national import, only a full judge established under Article III has the authority to issue a warrant. Magistrate judges may not issue such warrants unless said warrants are reviewed by a Federal Judge under Article III.
  3. For the purpose of enforcement of Federal law, only one agency shall be established and shall have its actions directly supervised by the Attorney General of the United States.
  4. In the Federal government there can be no agency of the Executive Branch that is independent of the President of the United States. Ultimate responsibility and authority to execute the law rests solely in the President and all persons employed in the Executive Branch serve at the pleasure of that office.

If anyone can think of other amendments to propose, please place them in the comments.

FuzzyMarineVet 8 Aug 10
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Power to the people.

2

A convention at this time would be totally controlled by the socialist side and could have nothing but a disastrous conclusion for freedom.

Sadly, I'm afraid you are correct. But I will point out that once there are 37 states signing on to it those will be the ones in control, not the socialists. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon all freedom-loving individuals to get involved in local politics, because when the rubber hits the road that is where it will matter.

1

“There is much more momentum for the idea of a Convention of States to amend the Constitution. Should that happen I have a few suggestions for proposed amendments.”

Those movements of independent individual people led by those ideas as those ideas manifest into specific leaders and followers along the paths people go from beginning to end along those paths inspired by those ideas, BEGS THE QUESTION why?

The first so-called Convention of States was hatched in secret meetings by treasonous frauds for treasonous frauds, and from those secret meetings the so-called Convention of States proceeded behind closed doors with gag orders issued to those independent individuals making deals behind those closed doors, as those treasonous frauds conspired to divide up America into plantations where Tax Farmers plant the seeds of Nationalism and grow their Empire from those seeds.

The first Con-Con Con-Job hatched the Empire of America of the Treasonous Fraud Parasitic Predators, by the Treasonous Fraud Parasitic Predators, and for the Treasonous Fraud Parasitic Predators, because they could get away with it, if they can bribe, extort, or otherwise turn enough patriots to then gain “Majority Rules” during the illegal coup.

There was no authority given to Nationalists to Nationalize the existing Federation of Republics that were formed between 1774 and 1789, and founded upon moral principle, precedent, statute, code, and due process of law on an equal footing.

The Nationalists even confessed that they had to employ a fraudulent “Federalist” Flag, a False Flag, to get away with Nationalization of the then existing Federation of Republics.

True patriots of The People, which is of the republic, federated or not, found out that those false federalists were truly Nationalists. The true patriots smelled the RAT of Nationalism.

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
“But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national.”

Having then, above, the begged question “why” would anyone call another Con-Con Con Job, given that the first one was so “good” for Nationalists, the answer could be the opposite of the original coup, or the true motive behind the curtain could be an end to American Nationalism, as those in power transfer all power over the American Nation-State to the CCP, or other Nation, or other Empire, where the Legal Fiction Entity is based offshore, and no longer is the Legal Fiction Entity (limited liability) based on American shores, which is in a term: pure fiction.

If the goal then, for another Con-Con Con-Job is more of the same fiction, then what is the whole truth behind the fictional goal?

If the goal is the opposite goal opposite to the original Con-Con Con-Job, is that goal then a return to federated republics founded upon moral principle, precedent, statute, code, and due process of law on an equal footing, as it was between 1774 and 1789 in America?

Confirming the statements above with evidence:

NATIONAL Convention of Treasonous Fraud Parasitic Predators signing their confessions:
Page 4 Luther Martin
[archive.org]
"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

"But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."

Moving on to the Topic as presented by the Topic author who authorizes the Topic for Discussion or dissemination.

  1. "Congress has no authority to delegate any of the powers granted to Congress in Article I.”

By moral principle, precedent, statute, code, and due process of law on an equal footing a FRAUD does not create lawful authority, the opposite is true.

"There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments" (United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61(1878).

If the Treasonous Fraud Parasitic Predators currently occupying offices of the National Government Empire, built upon a foundation of forensically documented treasonous fraud, complete with signed confessions, want to return to federated republics under common laws of free people in Liberty, they can go to their County Criminal Grand Jurors and begin a Criminal Prosecution according to law, with named defendants suspected of Treasonous Fraud Parasitic Predation, and if the independent grand jurors, after investigation, validate that cause to action lawfully, then those independent County Criminal Grand Jurors write a True Bill to put the accused, the private prosecutor, the defendant, and all the evidence demanded by the independent trial jurors into the County Criminal Court of Law for that trial, so as to produce Trial Transcripts published as Public Notices, to let The People know what is or is not allowed in America.

  1. “:In matters of grave national import, only a full judge established under Article III has the authority to issue a warrant. Magistrate judges may not issue such warrants unless said warrants are reviewed by a Federal Judge under Article III.”

That is patently false. The rules governing National office holders apply to National office holders according to some National office holders, but those same rules governing National office holders do not apply to National office holders according to other National office holders, as construtability of meanings of words was written into those National rules governing National office holders.

That was documented by George Mason, warning about the Nationalization of the former federation of republics:

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 6, 1788
George Mason:
“Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

Rules agreed upon by The People for defense of The People include grand jury powers to authorize original writs from original jurisdiction, which is whatever the facts warrant in any case. The facts in common law determine the warrants that warrant a cause of defensive action at law.

A private prosecutor, such as a victim, in common law, take on Attorney General powers, when the threshold between a Civil matter and a Criminal matter has passed, which means that The Public is endangered by a suspected criminal rioting in the blood of the innocent, which is a serious matter, a serious concern to The Public, and anyone is thereby given DUTY to take the matter to a local grand jury for validation as to suspicion of a criminal act, and then the Grand Jury authorizes original writs, not limited to warrants, habeas corpus, subpoena, mandamus, quo warranto, arrest, and even posse comitatus executive powers.

That is moral principle, precedent, statute, code, and rule of law on an equal footing going back in time even before people wrote shit down on stones or hemp paper, so YOUR ORDER you follow, can be followed voluntarily as you decide, independently, or YOU can just follow the orders given to you by criminals as it pleases you to do, without question.

Even in the military the moral principle is preserved to this day, as exemplified in the example with Huge Thomson during The Vietnam Aggressive War for Profit.

  1. “For the purpose of enforcement of Federal law, only one agency shall be established and shall have its actions directly supervised by the Attorney General of the United States.”

That is not Federal, the mere fact that the criminals use the word Federal fraudulently, confesses that fact for all the people who have eyes to see clearly.

In American jurisprudence, by moral principle, any private individual stepping up the plate as a private prosecutor in a criminal case in their REPUBLIC assumes, by law, the powers of the Attorney General even if the office is occupied by the named defendant named on the True Bill.

If you cannot get that straight through in your thick skull, who is at fault?

  1. “In the Federal government there can be no agency of the Executive Branch that is independent of the President of the United States. Ultimate responsibility and authority to execute the law rests solely in the President and all persons employed in the Executive Branch serve at the pleasure of that office.”

So, basically, you agree with the rules governing Totalitarian Dictatorships, and that is because you are so fucking smart?

The actual document referenced has sufficient fine print attached to it, as to make anyone capable of claiming anything with authority confirmed with references, but someone else, digging even deeper, can make a counter-claim with as much FALSE authority.

The only way that can work with human beings in command of moral conscience, is in cases where the victims are told that their independent powers at law are below the powers of their masters.

You have been warned, more than once, and not by some stupid forum member who takes the time to comment on your welcome POSTS here on this World Wide Web Platform.

Warnings of merit can be traced back inside each independent soul, if there is any soul LEFT.

So far there are at least 17 state legislatures that have passed resolutions calling for a Convention of States, that's not a few individuals. The practice of unelected, unacountable and unfirable people choosing what is regulation and what laws are to be enforced, no mater what the people or the states want, is tyranny. You equate putting the power in the hands of the person accountable to the people and limited to at maximum eight years of executive power to a dictatorship. I call BS. You don't even believe that. What you espouse is to form a dictatorship of the rulers over the elected legislators and executive. That is not a republic, it's despotism.

@FuzzyMarineVet

"The practice of unelected, unacountable and unfirable people choosing what is regulation and what laws are to be enforced, no mater what the people or the states want, is tyranny."

YOU wrote that, not me, so I quote what YOU wrote, and I can comment on what YOU wrote.

The CRIME of enforcing fraudulent STATUTES (they are not laws) are checked and balanced by moral principle, precedent, statute, code, and rule of law on an equal footing by The People as private prosecutors, independent grand jurors, and trial jurors commanding executive branches of republican government.

Calling what Treasonous Frauds do, by any other name other than Treason and Fraud, aids and abets, as if one believes the Treason and the Fraud, aids and abets, lends support to, those Treasonous Frauds, as if naming what those Treasonous Frauds do, when they commit Treason and Fraud, by any other name other than Treason and Fraud, obstructs due process of law, obstructs justice, and shows contempt for the morally defended law process.

"You equate putting the power in the hands of the person accountable to the people and limited to at maximum eight years of executive power to a dictatorship."

No. I did not. There is no proof anywhere of your false statement, and that is probably why you do not provide any reference for your twisting of the words I actually published.

A true leader of any group, no matter what size, or for what purpose, leads because their leadership is sound, and those who follow know that they are following justifiable leadership, factually, so long as each follower has at least checked the STATUTES used by the leader, to make sure that the leader has not given the leader arbitrary power to enforce anything that pleases that CRIMINAL.

The test for leadership, factually, is the capacity to do so factually over time, and if the leader resorts to FRAUD to maintain "leadership," said "leader" is a leader in name only.

A leader of any republic leads under risk of being held accountable for bad leadership by those who watch carefully for bad leadership and hold a bad leader to account for bad leadership, and those in power to hold bad leaders accountable for bad leadership are The People as a whole, meaning anyone capable, anyone discovering bad leadership, validating bad leadership, and prosecuting bad leadership according to Statutes written for those cases where The People capable prosecute Bad Leadership.

Without good leadership, such people subjected to a Military Dictatorship, often those under bad leadership, and having no Statute to help them prosecute bad leadership, resort to Private Justice, also known as fragging.

That is not news.

Example:
[americanantiquarian.org]

In that Giant Wall of Text that almost nobody will ever read again, in part due to Bad Leadership, and in part due to having no means of holding Bad Leadership accountable due to Bad Leadership obstructing the process that holds Bad Leadership accountable, has an example within an example of fragging.

The military veterans of The Revolutionary War were loosing their farms because of Bad Leadership and Bad Leadership took from those military veterans their due process of law on an equal footing, the same way that the Bad Leadership from The British had done, so those military veterans, no longer having due process of law on an equal footing, resorted to fragging. But that is not all, in that Witch Hunt Witch Trial Witch Court was someone who was a good leader, someone named Dr. William Whiting, and during the Witch Hunt Witch Trial in the Witch Court that Doctor reminded The People about a routine problem with Bad Leadership exemplified during the fall of The Roman Empire.

All that is in that Giant Wall of Text that no one will read. The Roman military forces had their due process of law taken from them then too, and then, as now, they resorted to fragging and other inventive workings that work around Bad Leadership, such as establishing Trial by Jury.

"You equate putting the power in the hands of the person accountable to the people and limited to at maximum eight years of executive power to a dictatorship."

YOU publish false accusations against me, because you can get away with it.

"The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community." - 1 Hume, Appendix, l."

That is a Giant Wall of Text written so as to help people avoid fragging.

Philadelphiensis IX
February 06, 1788
"Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army? Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands."

That is yet another individual looking at the National Party Faction working to establish their Totalitarian Dictatorship upon the ashes of the former federated republics annihilated by the National Party Faction Cult members. Not me, not a stupid forum idiot commenting on your welcome Forum Posts, rather, that is one of those famous (infamous) Founders of federated republics, one of those patriots that were against annihilating the federated republics so as to consolidate all the people into one Nation-State Legal Fiction Corporation complete with Witch Hunt Witch Court Witch Trial Summary Justice Appellate Jurisdiction Over-Rule of The People and the common law due process system based upon moral principle, precedent, statute, code, and on an equal footing at law.

To help keep the military units from fragging bad leaders.

"I call BS."

YOU make up a false version of what I actually wrote, and then YOU call what you created out of pure fiction BS.

Yes, YOU created BS, and now you call what you created BS.

If you have anything to say about anything I publish, and you call what I publish BS, then start doing so, otherwise, you are no different than anyone else who creates the BS that you call BS and blame YOUR BS on someone else.

YOU are neither responsible nor accountable for what you create in fact, and rather than face the music, you resort to fabricating a false story about me, and then you blame me for what you fabricate out of Executive Fiat.

"You don't even believe that."

I cannot "believe" something YOU create out of pure fiction.

What precisely was the cause of YOU jerking your knee? What exactly did you read that then caused you to make false claims about me? If YOU have something I wrote in YOUR mind, and it looks like something YOU do not like, than use quotes, and then we both can know where communication fails.

"What you espouse is to form a dictatorship of the rulers over the elected legislators and executive."

That is false. That has nothing to support it, because it is false. There is no way possible for you to prove that statement as true, because there is no evidence that it is true, therefore the only way you can create that statement is by pure fiction.

People form republics step by step each time, over time so many times, as to establish a tried and true method of forming republics, and so long as each new group of people DO NOT resort to creating pure fiction to get what they want, a republic will remain a republic, run by the people, run for the people, because a republic is of the people each time.

Now ready that, misread it, read it again, misread it again, and then create something you think it says, because you misread it, and then claim that your twisted version of what is in the message is then my version, despite any effort on my part to prove otherwise, because YOU fraudulently assume dictatorial powers over my messages. YOU can read what I write, twist it around, end then YOU can claim that YOUR version of what I write is officially true, because you say so.

"What you espouse is to form a dictatorship of the rulers over the elected legislators and executive."

I did not.

That is not a republic, it's despotism.

According to YOU.

Rights of Man
Page 52.

"A government on the principles on which constitutional governments arising out of society are established, cannot have the right of altering itself. If it had, it would be arbitrary. It might make itself what it pleased; and wherever such a right is set up, it shows there is no constitution."

Thomas Paine Rights of Man
Chapter III
Page 176

"Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As those democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed. Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical or aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.

"As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others.

"It has always been the political craft of courtiers and courtgovernments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. let us examine a little into this case.

"The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

"Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

"Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real Republic, in character and in practice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation only. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government, for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case, therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the Res-Publica, or the Public Business of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.

"It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practice upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., etc., a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society. It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practice, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplicity of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences.

"Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man.

"As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them.

"Referring them to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.

"Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.

"It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood and the most eligible in practice; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.

"It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and populous as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivalled her own democracy.

"That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system. It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interest of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has already been observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage. It is never in the cradle, nor on crutches. It admits not of a separation between knowledge and power, and is superior, as government always ought to be, to all the accidents of individual man, and is therefore superior to what is called monarchy."

According to Thomas Paine, a republic is:

"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

"Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it."

That can be repeated but for what purpose if the reader is going to twist the words around so as to arrive at the opposite, predetermined, conclusion?

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:359639
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.