America's Form of Government

In my last post, entitled "The Purpose of the Constitution," I discussed briefly why the Constitution was written, what purpose the Constitution serves as far as the liberties of the American people are concerned, and what the duties of the different participants in this form of government are. In this post, I shall explain in more detail the form of government created by the Constitution.

As I stated in my previous article, the Constitution establishes a constitutional federal-republican form of government. But what exactly do those fancy words mean? First, our system of government is "constitutional" because the ultimate authority figure in this government is (or at least, is meant to be) the law, set forth in a single Constitution. No one single individual is allowed to have a greater authority or say above the law, not even the people of the United States. If we are truly a "government of law, and not of men," then nobody is allowed to question the authority of the law. More on that in a minute.

Second, this from of government is "federal" because it involves a "covenant" or a "compact" being made by many parts, which then function as a single body. In the case of a federal America, all of the states of the Union made a covenant or compact among themselves to submit to the Constitution. The federal government's job, then, is only to make sure that the states keep their agreement (As I demonstrated in my last post, the states did have a compact among themselves, delineated in the Articles of Confederation, but the states lacked sufficient checks and therefore sufficient unity because of an inefficient federal government, which failed to effectively keep hold them accountable to their compact. The Constitution was written to amend this problem).

Thirdly, and lastly, America's form of government is republican because the people of America, the law-abiding citizens of this country, have a say in the affairs of their government, through their elected representatives. In the case of America, we citizens elect members of village, town, city, county, and state government. Those state and local officials that we do not elect (such as judges or heads of executive departments) are appointed and approved by those whom we have elected to government ourselves. The Founding Fathers created the federal government to represent the states which represent the people of America. Therefore, the Founding Fathers designed the election of federal officers, with the exception of the members of the House of Representatives, to be chosen indirectly by the people or directly by the state legislatures.

For instance, members of the U. S. Senate were elected by the legislatures of their states. This was unfortunately changed with the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 (which year I like to call "the year of unconstitutional amendments to the Constitution"). The 17th Amendment changed the electoral process of Senators from being chosen by their state legislatures to being popularly elected by the people.

Yes, that sounds good. It sounds democratic. It sounds like it would possibly prevent state "aristocracy" from calling the shots in the U. S. Senate. But there are some serious problems with this amendment:

(1) Congress, the body that created the 17th Amendment, has no authorization to CHANGE the Constitution, only to AMEND it; by CHANGING the election of U. S. Senators, they forsook the Founders' intent of having direct state representation in Congress and in the federal government. Hence, the 17th Amendment is unconstitutional.

(2) By making the election of U. S. Senators rely upon popular vote of the people, large cities and urban areas automatically are given the final say in who becomes Senator. It does not take a demographics-expert to figure out that morality and integrity in huge, crowded, and especially port cities are poor, to say the least. On the other hand, more rural areas not under the influence of corrupt city politics or morals are forced into being the minority and have far less of a say than the more populous areas. This is not equal representation, and it is a danger to the integrity and honesty of those elected to the office of United States Senator.

(3) But perhaps the most glaring downside of the 17th Amendment is that it completely takes away ALL direct representation of the state governments in the federal governments away from the state governments; the states are no longer directly represented in the most powerful and authoritative branch of the federal government! Hence, the original purpose of the federal government is completely evaded. The federal government, now both in structure and in practice, no longer protects, unites, and checks the states; it now has all power and authority over the states (now that the laws and regulations passed by the federal government and its bureacracies directly rule the American people) without their proper representation. The federal government now acts deliberately contrary to the original intent of the Framers. The federal government is now doing what the Founders wanted to prevent it from doing: absorbing dominion over the states and ruling the lives of the American people directly.

After looking at the 17th Amendment, we see the harmful affects it caused, even though it may have been created for the purpose of increasing "democracy" in our form of government.

"But isn't democracy good?" you ask. "How could democracy hurt America? Didn't our Founding Fathers establish a democracy when they created this country?" To answer this question, we need to have a common definition of the term "democracy." If "democracy" to the reader means "the ordinary person having a say in the affairs of government," then the answer to all of those questions is "yes." But if "democracy" means to the reader that the people decide what is law and what isn't (notice I did NOT say "they influence what legislatures decide to adopt as law") -- in other words, the people are a law unto themselves and have nobody to check them, then the answer to all of those questions is, emphatically, "NO." This second definition of "democracy" is the kind of democracy vehemently opposed by our Founders:

"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 (1)

"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 (2)

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." -- Alexander Hamilton (3)

"...democracies 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 are violent in their deaths." -- James Madison, (4)

You almost DEFINITELY never learned this information in today's government indoctrination camps (i. e., public schools) or through the writings and documentaries of contemporary "scholars."

To understand why the Founding Fathers opposed both forms of autocracy (a form of government in which one man or a group of men make supreme law) and democracy (a form of government in which the majority makes the supreme law) is because they knew that neither of those forms of government fulfill the purpose of government successfully. The reason why both these forms of government usually fail to accomplish the purpose of government (which is to encourage justice and punish the evildoer) is simply that both forms of government are governments of men, and man, in fallen state of nature, is inherently selfish and evil. As the Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful [or, perverse and fraudulent] above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know [or, comprehend] it?" Because the Framers recognized this truth, they realized that men in government must be held accountable to a single standard that goes beyond the mere opinions of human beings; human government must itself be governed by a standard of absolute truth. Hence, the Framers created a government of law.

But what is law? From whence does it derive its authority? Don't men agree on the kind of laws by which they will abide? Didn't the Framers, who were, of course, human beings, decide what was to be law when they wrote the Constitution? Good questions. And yes, the Founders did write down the law. But they based that higher law (the Constitution) on a greater authority than upon their own opinions. They recognized that GOD'S LAW was superior to man's law; that GOD'S LAW, as revealed in the Scriptures, were the only ture basis for any laws that man might create. For instance:

"[T]he law of nature, 'which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligations to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.'—BLACKSTONE." -- Alexander Hamilton, a Framer, signer, and defender of the U. S. Constitution (5)

"All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine." -- James Wilson, one of the most active delegates at the Convention of 1787, a signer of the Constitution (6)

"[T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control." --Rufus King, signer of the Constitution (6)

These facts explain why the concept of "separation of church ans state" is not only ridiculous and un-historical, but completely hostile to the system of American law. God forbid (a phrase the ACLU is about to declare unconstitutional now) that we should separate law from its only valid source: the Scriptures. The Bible is inspired by God, who is all-good and all-wise -- not imperfect, as humankind is -- and therefore He is the best source for law. The majority of the Framers were Christians, and believed this truth. Those who were not Christians at least had a great respect for the Bible, and thought that it was the best source for moral guidelines.

Of course, these declarations bring up many more questions and will certainly spark debate. I will continue to further examine these in my up-coming posts. Any questions or remarks are welcome, or you can simply investigate the Founders' writings online at The Founders' Bookshelf, which I will continue to expand.

(1)-(5) see above links
(6) Original Intent, by David Barton; p. 337