Government is a tool for protecting individual liberty. That is all. It should not ever grant liberty or rights because it DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO. It was understood during the inception of this country and should be understood now that our individual rights – life, liberty and the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness – are unalienable. That's my interpretation of Thomas Jefferson's assertion:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
John Adams expounded upon this notion:
“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."Only the Supreme Being to which the founding fathers looked has the ability to grant rights and liberties - not Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, not John McCain or George Bush. The Constitution never even hints that government is a granter of rights. It is not. It is the protector of rights.
On this premise, I assert a Republican form of government is infinitely preferable because it has the tools to protect liberties of the individual while withstanding the swirling tide of opinion and subjective truth. A Democratic form of government is less desirable because it does not have tools to protect individual liberties or withstand the swirling tide of opinion and subjective truth; for whatever the majority determines is right is right and can be made law, even when it imposes unfair and unjust burdens upon the individual.
Therefore, at the risk of sounding sanctimonious, I reiterate by a pledge of allegiance to the REPUBLIC as one nation under God (for the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution are not granted by man, but by Him; for if granted by man they can be taken away by man) to protect and preserve the liberty and justice for the individual, which individual embodies the whole.
Are we a Republic or a Democracy?
Republic
0 Comments:
Post a Comment