Our history is filled with discussions and even disagreements about the character or our Constitutional government. Many of our number exclaim almost reflexively that we are a democracy while others remind us that “to the republic for which it stands” our flag properly flies over more than just a democracy and a few will even remind us of Benjamin Franklin’s words in response to the question “well, Doctor, what do we have, a republic or a monarchy?” – “a republic, if you can keep it.” Since that celebratory day in the fall of 1787 scholars have labored to define the character or our national experiment. Are we a Democracy? Are we a Republic? Are we some sort of a hybrid of the two? The debate continues still to this day.
If we are truly a Democracy, the power to govern our nation lies with the people and each of our number has an equal vote in the affairs of our government. Didn’t our founders proclaim to the British King that legitimate power to govern can only flow from the “consent of the governed.”
We can agree that such an organization is nearly our situation, but not exactly our situation. In that Democracy, the mere call to order would overwhelm us. In our democracy, the people elect others to represent their interests in the affairs of our government. This representation is more consistent with the character of a republic, but there is more to consider about the organization of a republic. Checking the dictionary on my bookshelf tells me that “a republic is a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is a usu. president.” My dictionary goes on to say, “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” So, in a republic, the representatives hold the power rather than the people, but the power is held for the finite duration of the term of office of the elected official.
Neither of these two descriptions seem quite a proper description of the government we have in our United States of American. Instead, we seem to find ourselves with a mixture of ingredients from each. Our founders aptly used the term republican democracy.
Going back to our Declaration of Independence and quoting from the opening sentence of the second paragraph, we find some constraints for our government to observe when it states, “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, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Potentially the most difficult of these constraints is the maintenance of equality amongst the members of our society who are being represented by our central government.
It was easy to understand when we were talking about one person – one vote in the character of a pure democracy. It is more complicated when we are electing representatives and establishing legislative bodies. It is even more complicated when we have a bicameral legislature with different terms of office and different representation formulas between our two legislative bodies.
The easiest is the Senate because our Senate is populated with two senators for each state. We must remind ourselves that we are the United States of America, and the makeup of the Senate gives each State equal representation. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is populated in proportion to the population of each of the States. The total number of representatives in the House is established at four hundred and thirty-five and each State is apportioned based on the appropriate fraction of that number.
The apportionment is not exact, nor should we expect it to be so. What we should expect is that each congressional district receives as nearly as possible an equal portion of that State’s population as residing in nearly equal geographic areas. In other words, each citizen of each State should enjoy equal representation, or nearly so, in the affairs of our government and it is on this point that some of our States are failing.
When our Declaration of Independence was written, “all men” didn’t mean “ALL MEN,” but it could be argued that it was a worthy goal for the future. Over the intervening years, “all men” has been expanded to be more inclusive, but some of our States have taken steps to thwart the implementation of this most fundamental goal for our republican democracy. Indeed, as I write these words there are people in many of our United States working on legislation designed to suppress the votes of minority groups in their State. Many of those States have laws on their books that, by design, deny many of the privileges and immunities of citizenship to members of several minority groups. Our current situation is becoming less equal rather than more equal in the treatment of our citizenry.
We might wonder if that initial goal of equality was misunderstood? Many scholars over the years have attempted to interpret those words and bring about a common understanding. I have read many of those efforts, but none have said it better than Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts in a speech before the Senate on February 6th, 1866, when he said:
“Foremost is the equality of all men. Of course, in a declaration of rights, no such supreme folly was intended as that all men are created equal in form or capacity, bodily or mental; but simply that they are created equal in rights. This is the first of the self-evident truths that are announced, leading and governing all the rest. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are among inalienable rights; but they are all held in subordination to that primal truth. Here is the starting-point of the whole, and the end is like the starting-point. In announcing that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, the Declaration repeats again the same proclamation of Equal Rights. Thus, is Equality the Alpha and the Omega, in which all other rights are embraced. Men may not have a natural right to certain things, but most clearly, they have a natural right to impartial laws, by which they shall be secured in Equal Rights. Equality in rights is the first of rights. It was because these truths had been set at naught by Great Britain, in her relations with our fathers, that Independence was declared. To these truths, therefore, was the new Government solemnly dedicated, as it assumed its separate and equal station among the Powers of the earth. Do you ask for the definition of “Republic?” Here it is by patriot lexicographers, whose authority cannot be questioned by us.
“As the war of Independence began with a declaration of principles, so it ended with a like declaration. At its successful close, the Continental Congress, in an address to the people, by the pen of James Madison, thus announced the objects for which it had been waged, and thus supplied another definition of the new government:
“Let it be remembered that it has been the pride and the boast of America that the rights for which she has contended were the rights of human nature. By the blessing of the Author of these Rights, they have prevailed over all opposition and form the basis of thirteen Independent States. No instance has heretofore occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated forms of Republican Government can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by their fruits. In this view the citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest truth ever confided to a “political society.” — Journal of Continental Congress, April, 1783, vol. viii, p. 201.
“Such was the sublime declaration. It was for the “rights of human nature” that our fathers went forth to battle, and these rights are proclaimed to “form the basis of thirteen independent States.” But foremost among these rights is Equality, including of course the equal right of all to a voice in the Government. And this is the Republic which our fathers, with pride and boast, then gave as an example to mankind.
“The same spirit appears in the National Constitution, which, by its preamble, asserts practically the same sentiments. Here it is:
“’We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’”
“Thus, according to this proclamation, the Constitution was ordained, not to create an oligarchy or aristocracy, not to exclude certain persons from the pale of its privileges, not to organize inequality of rights in any form, but “to establish justice,” which is Equality; “to insure domestic tranquility,” which is vain without justice; “to provide for the common defense,” which is the defense of all; “to promote the general welfare,” which is the welfare of all; and “to secure the blessings of Liberty” to all the people and their posterity, which is to give to all the complete enjoyment of rights, foremost among which is Equality. Here, then, is another authoritative definition of the Republic which was formed.
“Thus has our country testified to its idea of a Republic, not only throughout its long days of controversy, but in these solemn declarations, which are in themselves monumental acts.”
Members of the Republican party are the ones who currently demonstrate white supremacist behaviors to the greatest extent. Members of the Democrat party are the ones who are not taking steps to block or override the prejudicial efforts of the Republican party. Neither of our political parties are, as they are honor bound to do, working in support of their oaths of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
We don’t need Republicans and Democrats in elected office – no, we need Americans in those chairs. Americans who are more concerned with the needs of their constituents than with the corrupt desires of special interest factions.
The Sausage Grinder is Broken, will you help to fix it? If you haven’t read A Broken Sausage Grinder; Is Our Government Fundamentally Flawed?, you’re not prepared for the job.
Comment here or send an email: abrokensausagegrinder@comcast.net
Like us on Facebook: A Broken Sausage Grinder
Follow us on Twitter: Hank Thomas
Watch on YouTube: A Broken Sausage Grinder
I do agree with all of the ideas you have presented in your post. They are very convincing and will certainly work. Still, the posts are too short for starters. Could you please extend them a little from next time? Thanks for the post.
I am trying to balance the point of my posts with the value of your time. Sometimes the result is longer and sometimes the result is shorter, but I hope I am getting my point across.
Have a great day,
Hank