FROM REPUBLIC TO DEMOCRACY

 The Founders of this Constitutional Republic hated the concept of a Democracy. Ben Franklin stated that ”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” This article discusses the intended structure of Our Republic and the differences that exist in a Democracy.
INTRODUCTION

My mother just rece...

ntly read the following statement made by Ron Paul, Congressman from the State of Texas:
”The distinction between a democracy and a republic is more than just a matter of semantics. The fundamental principle in a democracy is majority rule. Democracies, unlike republics, do not recognize fundamental rights of citizens [outside the right to vote] nor do they limit the power of the government. Indeed, such limitations are often scorned as intrusions on the will of the majority. Thus in a ­democracy, the majority, or the elected representatives, can limit an individual’s right to free speech, defend himself, form contracts, or even raise, one’s children. Democracies, unfortunately, recognize only one fundamental right: the right to participate in the choosing of their rulers at a pre-determined time.

”In contrast, in a republic the role of the government is strictly limited to a few well-defined functions and the fundamental rights of the individuals are respected [and protected]. A constitution limiting the authority of central government and the Bill of Rights expressly forbidding the federal government from abridging the fundamental rights of a -people are features of a republic form of government. Even a cursory reading of the Federalists Papers and other works of the founders shows they understood that obtaining the consent of 51 percent of the people does not in any way legitimize government actions abridging individual liberty.” Ron Paul, Member U.S. House of Representatives. 7/10/00
Upon reading the foregoing, my mother asked me how we went from a Republic to a Democracy. The following work is my answer to my mother’s question.
M. Kenneth Creamer

ON THE ROAD FROM A REPUBLIC TO A DEMOCRACY
We the citizens of the Untied States have been subjected to the idea that this country is a democracy for so long; the fact that our fore fathers established a Constitutional Republic has been all but lost. However, there is an ever increasing ground swell of passion to help educate the masses that our heritage of individual sovereignty wasn’t to be frittered away by judges willing to wash their hands in the wash bowl of innocence in order to patronize themselves as they yield to the rule of the mob.
Proof that we are in fact a Constitutional Republic is as close as the “pledge of allegiance to the flag” which begins as “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. ...” Seems as though that should be clear enough, wouldn’t you think?
Check the response of Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as taken from the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention when asked the following question:

”Well, Doctor, what have we got-a Republic or a Monarchy?”
Mr. Franklin’s response was “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Notice that besides defining our “new” system of government, he also laid the responsibility of keeping it as such directly on the people, which when one understands the concept of individual sovereignty; one understands that all responsibility for the kingdom rests on the sovereign, which is us.
Further proof can be found in the Constitution at Article IV, Section 4 where it states “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” To understand what a “republican form of government” is, one finds it defined in Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, the law dictionary used by the Supreme Court of the United States. Therein it defines a “republican form of government” as “a government constituted on the principle that the supreme power resides in the body of the people. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 (US) Dall 419, 457, 1 LEd 440, 456; a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the people [through their constitutions] and which is administered by persons holding their offices for a limited time or during good behavior. 10 Am J.2d §390.”
The Chisholm case was decided early in our history in 1793 and in that case the Supreme Court left no doubt as to what the framers meant by a “republican form of government,” to wit:
”The revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time, providing for more domestic concerns, by states conventions, and other temporary arrangements. From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it: and it was then not an uncommon opinion that the un-appropriated lands, which belonged to the crown, passed, not to the people of the colony or states within those limits they were situated, but to the whole people… ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country: and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a constitution by which it was their will that the state governments should be bound, and to which constitutions should be made to conform… It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereign­ties of Europe, and particularly in England, existed on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant, derives all franchises, immunities, and privileges; it is easy to perceive, that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint… The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects… and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people; there the sov­ereign actually administers the government; here never in a single instance; our governors are agents of the people; and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which the regents of Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their princes have personal powers, dignities and preeminence; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens. II Chisholm, supra at 454. (emphasis added) (Opinion by John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supremet court)
Therefore, the unique characteristic of the United States republican form of government was or is that the citizens, indiv­idually and jointly, were declared sovereign. Almost one hundred years later, in 1886, the Supreme Court reiterated the same theme with respect to individual sovereignty in our Republic:
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author of the law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts… For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, at the mere will of another, seems intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 US. 356 (1886) (emphasis added)
So the word “Republic” or the term “Republican Form of Govern­ment” as found in the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4 means a form of government where the individuals, severally and jointly, are the sovereignty whereby specific “sovereign powers [were] delegated to the agencies of government” as required to protect the rights and sovereignty of the individual citizens. That is our heritage!
Do the majority of the people of this country understand that that is what exists today? The political rhetoric of the day professes that we live in a Democracy. Did our forefathers believe they were creating a “Democracy?” Observe the following and the answer becomes obvious:
“[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

-James Madison
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
-John Adams

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” Further, he stated that, “Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism.” In fact he believed that it was “democracy that pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms.”
-Fisher Ames
“We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.”
-Gouverneur Morris

“[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
-John Quincy Adams

A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.”
-Benjamin Rush

“In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.” -Noah Webster
“Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.” -John Witherspoon
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” – Benjamin Franklin

  So technically, what is a Democracy? Webster says it is “1. government in which people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled. … 3. majority rule 4. principle of equal rights, opportunity, and treatment…” At first blush, this sounds a lot like what the Supreme Court articulated above as pertaining to our Republic, but further analysis will demonstrate the gross differences.
First, in a Democracy the “people hold the ruling power,” “rule by the ruled.” In our Republic, the people are the “sover­eigns without subjects and have none to govern [(rule)] but them­selves,” so as sovereigns we have only the power to rule ourselves but not our neighbor.

  Second, in a Democracy the “majority rule” which is to say the majority through its representatives determines what the law is, what prohibitive acts and what specific performance the maj­ority wishes to impose on the masses, i.e. you and your neighbor. In our Republic no such concept exists. Remember, “in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, [including ones neighbor or the masses] seems intolerable in any country where freedom prevails.” (re­stated from Yick Wo above) Consequently, the fact that “no man [can] be compelled to hold his life or the means of living, or any material right to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another” means that even the majority cannot dictate their wishes on any individual to compel him to behave contrary to his wishes, save he violate the rights of another.

  Third, a Democracy operates under the “principle of equal rights, opportunity, and treatment.” So, if all individuals have the right to work but not the right to own gold or guns or allodial property, and if all individuals have the opportunity to start a “sanctioned” business but no opportunity to establish a “non-­sanctioned” business, and if all individuals are treated as subject citizens, serfs on the land required to obey all instructions and procedures from all agencies of government instead of going about their daily business as they see fit, then the principles of Democracy are fully intact. That is, all have equal rights, but not all unalienable rights, all have equal opportunity but not all opportunity, and all receive equal treatment as subject class citizens, serfs, but are not recognized as sovereigns. In our Constitutional Republic, all rights are endowed by (come from) our Creator, are unalienable, and are not enumerated. See the Declaration of Independence and the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. One individual’s rights stop at the deprivation of another indiv­idual’s rights. Rights are therefore equal but unlimited.

  In our Constitutional Republic, opportunities are unlimited. However, are all individuals subject to the same opportunities? In an abstract sense, yes, but in a real sense, no. In the abstract sense every individual draws on his own personal human capabilities to provide himself with his own opportunities and on that basis every individual has an opportunity to capitalize on his own per­sonal capabilities. However, in the real sense, not everyone’s human capabilities are equal and therefore every individual will create opportunities for himself which will ultimately not have the same or equal result as all others. Herein lies the strength of our Republic. While Henry Ford established a much larger opportunity for himself with his creative contributions to the automobile and its manufacturing than did the family farmer or laborer toiling in the hot sun baked fields, the family farmer and the laborer benefited from Mr. Ford’s opportunity far more than if Mr. Ford had chosen to work beside them in their sun baked fields. Henry Ford’s cars and trucks improved the farmer’s own opportunity to participate in the market. Such an improvement in the farmer’s opportunity also filtered down to his workers. By capitalizing on his own human capabilities to maximize his own opportunity, Mr. Ford’s cars and trucks raised the standard of living of all inhabitants in our Republic. It should not go unnoticed here that maximized opportunity, like the automobile example, begets additional opportunity throughout the Republic.

  As for treatment, in our Republic the agencies of government have no access to individuals except those who have contracted with said agency or who have been the subject of a complaint from another individual initiating a cause of action in the courts for some controversy or common law crime, trespass, fraud, murder, etc. However, whenever a cause of action is properly established, equal and just treatment is required and demanded by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments to the Constitution.

  In summary, one could say that in our Constitutional Republic, every indiv­idual has a right to act in any manner he sees fit according to his own moral values so long as he doesn’t interfere or other­wise influence another individual’s life without his consent.[1] In a Democracy, every individual is compelled to act in whatever manner the government dictates as sanctioned (commanded) by the majority. In short, a Democracy is based on the principle of an Ochlocracy (mob rule) while our own Constitutional Republic is based on the unique concept of individual sovereignty. In our Republic, the majority has no influence whatsoever on the minority, not even the smallest minority, the individual. One will not find another example of this anywhere in the world. So why do we want to dilute our system of governance by hob knobbing with the concept of mob rule (oligarchy) by referring to it as a democracy?

 So what took us from ungoverned sovereign individuals to governed subjects, serfs on the land governed by the will of the majority?[2] It didn’t happen overnight. It happened over a span of forty (40) plus years and fifty (50) years later, the majority of the people are still completely unaware of its occurrence, mainly because they have not a clue of what our Constitutional Republic really encompasses.

  Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that nothing in politics happens by accident, so let’s touch on some of the key “non­-accidents” that enslaved us on the road from our Republic to a Democracy. While other federal legislation expanding the power of the federal government occurred prior to 1913, such legislation is paled by what took place in 1913. The first, and probably the most damaging blow to our Republic in the long term, was the passing of the Federal Reserve Act creating the privately owned Federal Reserve central banking system. One of the members of the Rothchilds international banking family candidly stated around the turn of the 19th century that “if I can control a country’s banking system, I care not who makes its laws.” This may have been the real reason for the creation of the central banking system, the privately owned Federal Reserve System, but it was sold to the people as a “monetary stabilization” mechanism. However, aside from the fact that “monetary stabilization of fiat money” is an oxymoron, the newly created Federal Reserve System was anything but a “monetary stabilization” mechanism. In sixteen (16) short years later, 1929, it brought the United States free market to its knees by first dolling out cheap un-backed paper debt, (we were on a gold standard at the time) and then abruptly recalling the debt, the interest of which had to be paid in gold to this newly created central bank, causing a collapse of the market wiping out most of our family fortunes and savings.

  The second 1913 debacle was the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the “Income Tax” Amendment. However, in 1916 the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment created no new form of taxation. It said that the federal income was merely an indirect excise (or privilege) tax where taxable income (net profit) was the measure of the benefit from the exercise of the privilege and therefore the measure of the tax.[3] Notice the concept of a privilege tax[4]. Rights are still not taxable, but scarcely anyone today understands this distinction.

  Third, and probably the cornerstone of advancing the concepts of a Democracy, was the passing of the 17th Amendment changing how Senators were seated in Congress. The original Constitution specified that Senators as representatives of the interests of the individual states would consequently be appointed by the state legislatures. The 17th Amendment, while it didn’t substantively change anything else, it provided that the Senators would be elected by the popular vote of the people. The Senate was designed by the architects of the Constitution to give the sovereign states equal representation in the federal legislature alongside the sovereign people. Each, the states and the people, were sovereigns with respect to the federal legislature in the eyes of the Framers of the Constitution. While nothing in the 17th Amendment supposedly changed the responsibility of the Senators to represent the state legislatures, they, now being voted into office by the majority of the people, have loyalty to none but the majority of the people. Therefore, the states now have no voice in the federal government making the 17th Amendment the key spring board or the first shoe to drop in the effort to the establishment of a Democracy. It is a simple fact that a sovereign with no voice is not recognized and is therefore, by definition, not a sovereign[5].

  The next “non-accidental blow to our Republic was the 1929-30 Great Depression triggered by the private Federal Reserve banking system, as earlier mentioned. As an aside, this writer authored a paper titled the “Power Trinity,” which exposes the three (3) components required to take absolute control over the people, which are dependence, obedience, and monitoring. The Great Depression established the first component of the Power Trinity, dependence, by making a huge segment of the total population dependent on the federal government when it created massive work programs funded by newly printed fiat money funneled through the Federal Reserve private banking system (legislated counterfeiting). Work camps and federally funded projects sprang up all over the country replacing what was once a prospering productive free market. This monopolistic use of fiat money coupled with wage and price supports prevented the free market from establishing its own natural equalization and reconstruction remedies. Consequently, a large percentage of the population now owed its very existence to the whims of the federal government. The dependence leg of the “Power Trinity” was now firmly in place.

  While the obedience leg of the Power Trinity wasn’t established overnight. The first “notch in the handle” occurred in 1933 when Congress declared that it was “against public policy for the people of the United States to own gold,” and the people obediently turned in their gold in exchange for paper. It is a little known fact among the citizens of this country that the Constitution gives the federal government, Congress, “exclusive legislative jurisdiction” only over Washington, D.C. and other federally owned lands where such jurisdiction has been transferred to it from the Union State in which the land was originally situated (See Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). However, Congress has no delegated power to govern the people of or in any one of the various Union States that are party to the Constitution. When the people of the states obediently turned in their gold in exchange for private paper notes they sent a huge message of ignorant obedience to Washington, D.C. While we all know that ignorance of the law is no excuse; one must be ever mindful of the fact that it is actually preferred in matters of obedient performance. But even worse, where did the people go to turn in their gold for paper? Why they went to the private central Federal Reserve Bank, of course. NOW, who owns the gold?[6]

 Two years later: Congress passed the Federal Insurance Contribution Act, a.k.a. the Social Security Act. This “non­-accidental” legislation was arguably the most nefarious and fraudulent assault on the sovereignty of the people and therefore the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. The people thought they were (or are) participating in a “federal old age insurance plan” but a simple reading of the statutes reveals the fact that it is nothing less than a deviously levied income tax measured by the wages of federal employees. (See Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code following the definitions therein listed all the way through) Consequently, if one contributes to Social Security, he not only pays an income tax measured by his wages, he makes a declaration that his wages­ are taxable income and therefore establishes prima facie that he is a federal taxpayer subject to all the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code including the other income taxes. Getting the people to participate in this camouflaged taxing scheme was another “notch in the handle” of the obedience leg of the Power Trinity. Keep in mind that the Constitution forbids the federal government from taxing the people directly. But since the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was a benefit tax and Social Security is a “benefit,” the payment of the Social Security deduc­tion was presumed to be a voluntary participation in a federal benefit program for which a benefit tax (income tax) could be levied in exchange for the benefit. It only took us fifty (50) years to figure this out and most people, including many tax researchers, to this day fail to recognize this devious tax scheme.

  In 1939 Congress passed the “non-accidental” legislation called the “Public Salary Tax Act” taxing its employees for the privilege of working for the federal government, but few people cared.[7] One, not that many people worked for the federal government in 1939 but two, those that did didn’t mind the one or two percent tax on their salaries; after all they had many benefits working for the federal government worth more than this new tax, like full retirement, paid vacations, etc. The full impact of this “non-accidental” legislation would not be felt for another 15-20 years. Then the tax rate would be much higher, nearly 20 percent, and the number of federal government employees would be a significant percentage of the total population. Now what do we have? We now have a huge jealous federal bureaucracy assisting in the collection of an income tax mistakenly publicized to be imposed on the general population with the attitude that “if I have to pay, you have to pay,”
To help soften the general population to the acceptance of a general income tax, Congress in 1943 passed the “non-accidental” Victory Tax Act capitalizing on the people’s patriotism to help finance the Second World War.” It was to be a temporary “voluntary tax” which was to be refunded at the cessation of hostilities. But what it really accomplished was to get the general population accustomed to filing 1040 forms for those obedient enough to volunteer. However, one had to apply for the refund to realize the “promise” of the Act. At the cessation of hostilities everyone was so preoccupied with trying to put their lives and their families back together that no one remembered (and the federal government didn’t remind them) to apply for their Victory Tax Act refund. Instead: the federal government simply proceeded as if the Victory Tax Act was still in force and the general population obediently continued to file form 1040′s as if the income tax was here to stay. Aided by the “hype” of the Cold War, the Korean “police action”, and the propaganda mechanisms of the press and the big business establishment (i. e. international corporations and international banking establishments) the final “notch in the handle” of ‘ obedience was now established.

  This final concession of obedience where the individual citizens were obediently filing annual 1040 forms also carries with it the final leg of the Power Trinity – monitoring. Coupled with the mountain of morality legislation’ (i.e. gun laws, drug laws, etc.) and the enforcement thereof together with another mountain of specific performance legislation (i.e. the required use of a Social Security number for a drivers license, etc., the inferred requirement to file tax returns, etc.) to monitor the general population individually, the people have lost all semblance of sovereignty. They have become dependent, obedient and monitored serfs on the land under full control of a self appointed aristocracy. Sovereigns to serfs in forty (40) short years! Sovereigns in a Republic to serfs (subjects) in a Democracy.

  While the people have equal rights as provided by statute, they do not have unalienable rights as provide by Nature and Nature’s God: while they have equal opportunity as provided by statute, they do not have unlimited opportunity limited only by their own personal capabilities and desires as declared by the Declaration of Independence; and while they get equal treatment as provided by statute, they are not treated as sovereigns who are, by definition, permitted to go about their daily business as they see fit. As subjects under a Democracy the people are obligated to specific performance as defined by statute, as sovereigns under a Republic there is no concept of specific performance by statute, only such performance as mutually agreed to by contract with fellow sovereigns.
The road from a Republic to a Democracy can be symbolized by the allegory of a Frog. If you put a frog in a pan of very hot water he will jump out. However, if you put a frog in a pan of cool water and gradually apply heat to it, he will not only not jump out, he will sit there in the pan as the water is gradually heated to boiling, thereby tolerating being thoroughly “cooked to perfection.”
If the sovereign citizens of our Republic had been “forced marched” down the road to Democracy in one quick journey, there would have been one mass revolt. However, as it was, the journey was a slow stroll spanning multiple generations and the people never became aware of the gradual erosion of their sovereign status. They became dependant, obedient, and monitored subject class citizens thoroughly “controlled to perfection.”
And finally, reread above on page 3 what our founders had to say about “democracies:”
So much for the idea or presumption that our foundering fathers intended our own political system to be that of a Democracy. A Democracy is nothing more than a popularity or fashion contest and nobody wants to be unpopular or unfashionable. So it’s merely a political system modeled after the Pied Piper.

  EPILOGUE ­
Some people, including this author, subscribe to the theory that the massive federal legislation is in fact and in law only applicable within federal territory. While Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 granted Congress exclusive and total jurisdiction over federal lands ceded to the United States by a Union State in which it was situated, the Constitu­tion failed to specify just what type of government must prevail in that territory. Today the total federal area under the legis­lative control of Congress covers more territory than the three largest States in the Union. Since Congress is in effect the state legislator in this territory and since the Constitution failed to mandate just what type of governance must be provide in this area, Congress was free to implement a Democracy and took advantage of that leeway. So the federal rhetoric and media propaganda that “we” live in a Democracy may, in fact, be true for those living in federal territory, but NOT in any one of the 50 Union States party to the Union of States.
However, full blame and credit must go to the legal profession for its misinterpretation of the “supremacy clause” by presuming that federal law is supreme over State law, which it most defin­itely is not. Read the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it settles the issue. The legal profession has allowed federal law to creep into the territory of the Union States like the bubonic plague. Consequently, the once sovereign citizens allowed the experts of the law to dupe them into obediently abiding by laws that did not apply to them thereby forfeiting their sovereignty and accepting the subject class status in a Democracy.