ihopehefails
VIP Member
- Oct 3, 2009
- 3,384
- 228
- 83
- Banned
- #1
After some interesting threads about constitutional government protecting people's rights I realize that that is not completely correct. A republic does not protect the people's rights as much as it prevents government from getting out of the hands of the people.
In a straight democracy people elect others to represent and enact laws that they want but this only works in theory because once in power the elected are free to do whatever they want. When the people complain the elected pull out all the stops to maintain their power just as any organization would do when it faces public criticisms. Just think what businesses tell consumers when they are upset with them. They usually come up with a convenient story to appease them in order to maintain their popularity so why should an elected democratic government be any different?
A republic operates on a different principle where the people decide before hand what the government is going to do and establishes rules that the government is to follow which is why the elected take oaths to uphold the constitution. Those operating procedures usually coincide with what they want the government to do and they put people in power to follow those rules so the people in power do what the people want. This generally means that the will of the people does not exist in the hands of the elected but in the 'operating procedures' known as a constitution and as long as the people in power follow the rules they will always be doing what the people want.
A constitution does not magically ensure justice for all or even our rights since even the soviet union had a constitution but ensures that the government will always do what the people want them to do.
This is why living constitution and judicial activism violates the democratic will of the people because it allows the courts to pervert the originally created meaning of the 'operating procedures' enacted by the people into something the government wants thus reverting back to the inherent flaws of an unregulated democracy.
In a straight democracy people elect others to represent and enact laws that they want but this only works in theory because once in power the elected are free to do whatever they want. When the people complain the elected pull out all the stops to maintain their power just as any organization would do when it faces public criticisms. Just think what businesses tell consumers when they are upset with them. They usually come up with a convenient story to appease them in order to maintain their popularity so why should an elected democratic government be any different?
A republic operates on a different principle where the people decide before hand what the government is going to do and establishes rules that the government is to follow which is why the elected take oaths to uphold the constitution. Those operating procedures usually coincide with what they want the government to do and they put people in power to follow those rules so the people in power do what the people want. This generally means that the will of the people does not exist in the hands of the elected but in the 'operating procedures' known as a constitution and as long as the people in power follow the rules they will always be doing what the people want.
A constitution does not magically ensure justice for all or even our rights since even the soviet union had a constitution but ensures that the government will always do what the people want them to do.
This is why living constitution and judicial activism violates the democratic will of the people because it allows the courts to pervert the originally created meaning of the 'operating procedures' enacted by the people into something the government wants thus reverting back to the inherent flaws of an unregulated democracy.
Last edited:
