This is a question I have asked myself many times. I asked it because it seems that the Government wants to push a democracy on us, but I do not at all agree with that because it means that 51% rule 49% of the people. That basically means 49% lose their rights. I would NOT want to be part of the 49% in some cases I am sure…

So I looked for information on what the difference really is. Please read:

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature–the elective body there being the House of Commons–and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled “Constitutions.” Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts–next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his “Notes On The State of Virginia” written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . .” (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called “Constitution”–in reality a mere Act of that body:

“All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.”

This topic–the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority–is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the “excesses of democracy” The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America–the people at large of that period–who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the “excesses of democracy,” were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

“The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period.” (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

“Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.”

It is correct to say that in any Democracy–either a Direct or a Representative type–as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949–indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only “just powers” (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment–with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention–especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose–to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government–of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ “Autobiography” commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

“By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act.”

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the “Essex Result” (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called “Constitutions” adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully – it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only “just powers,” limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the “snob-rule” of a governing Elite and the “mob-rule” of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights–to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here–as follows:

“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label “Republic” has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused–for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling–having essential characteristics of–a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to “the ancient republics,” but in any such connection the term was used loosely–by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy–often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his “Thoughts on Government” and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.

This Article has the directions on how Congress is to account for the money it takes in, and expressly forbids other laws from being enacted by Congress.

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

This clause is covered extensively in Fundamentals #13

“No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”

Violations of this clause was one of the reasons for the ”Civil War.”  The North was putting Tariff’s on the sale of cotton from the South.  A civil war is fought when two factions are vying for the control of the same government.  This was no civil war.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Tell the above to the Coast Guard and the D.E.A.

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

The last time anyone tried to get an accounting was Senator Byrd in 1997.  He was told they couldn’t give him one because they were switching to computers.  Our tax money is supposed to be deposited into the Treasury.  Since 1792 it has been deposited into a central bank

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

This clause means that none can be granted an advantage over another because of a title—like “minority.”

John Conway

Fundamental #17

1. Do everything you have agreed to do. (the basics of contract law)
2. Do not encroach onto anther’s liberty or property. (the basics of civil and some criminal law)

“DISCRETION, n. [L, a separating. See Discreet.]

1. Prudence, or knowledge and prudence; that discernment which enables a person to judge critically of what is correct and proper, united with caution; nice discernment and judgment, directed by circumspection, and primarily regarding ones own conduct.”  1828

You have all read Section 8 by now.  Did you happen to see where this group of people from a political party can pass whatever legislation they want?  No, it is limited to the duties in Section 8. Did you see where this entity has the power to interfere in our personal lives at all?  NO!
Here is a list of things this government is not allowed to do when it comes to performing the functions as specifically spelled out in Section 8..

Section 9
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed
on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

    The "migration" here refers to moving a slave from one State to another.  The
importation refers to the import of a slave
 from another country. That is why
a slave could be taxed.  It was considered an importation of a commodity.  Both
practices would end in 1808.
    Migration is not mentioned any where else in the Constitution.  The States,
before the Constitution, controlled their own immigration.  Because it doesn't
mention in the Constitution who controlds immigration, you defer to the Tenth Amendment.
All powers not specifically given this government by this constitution are reserved to
the States.  The States control immigration, not some far off foreign government. 

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

There has to be a body, or evidence of a crime.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Bill of Attainder:  "Blacks Law Dictionary" edition one:
"A Legislative Act
 directed at a designated person pronouncing him guilty of an
alleged crime, usually treason With Out trial or conviction according to the
recognized rules of procedure, and passing sentence of death and attainder upon him.
    "Bills of Attainder," as they are technically called, are such special acts
of the legislature as inflict capital punishment upon persons supposed to be guilty
of high of fences such as treason or felony, with out cinviction in the ordinary course
of judicial proceedings.  If an act inflicts a lesser degree of punishment then the act
is called a "Bill of Pains and Punishment.  Both are included in the prohibition in
the Constitution."

EX POST FACTO;
   This is the only foreign language word in the Constitution.  Why?  It is Latin,
a dead language, so you can't change its meaning.  It is a hugely important word.
It means, after the fact, or retroactive.  Lets say I purchased a shot gun
 today
and it is legal today. A law can be passed making it illegal tomorrow to buy a shot
gun.  I can't be prosecuted because it was legal when I purchased the gun.
    A real creep changed the meaning of this word anyway.  It was the only supreme
Court Justice to be impeached for his arrogance and partisan politics.  His name
was Samuel Portlan Chase, you know, Chase Manhattan Bank.  He defined it as only
pertaining to criminal law, not taxes. 

Next 27-B

Citizen Conway

Fundamental #26-Jury

We all want smaller and less intrusive government.  Here is how we get just that.  This is our best tool. The supreme Court decision referred to here was Sparf & Hansen V. the U.S.  The Court ruled that, “the jury does not have to be informed of their power to judge the law.”  The Congress has the power to over rule this decision.  Until then, it is up to you to educate your neighbor
I have met very informed citizens that were uninformed of this power.  The below is a short read, but essential to the peaceful restoration of our republic.

If you haven’t seen it yet, here is the supreme Court ruling affirming this power:
Georgia V. Brailsford 3.US.1 (Dall)  (1794)
“The Jury has the power to judge the law in bringing a general verdict.”

In Liberty,
John Conway

{Before I go any further, you should know that there is no provision in our Constitution all;owing the transients occupying our Federal government to give our tax dollars in foreign aid.}

My fellow freedom fighters,
There is something very concrete that we can all do if we want our republic back.  Now that we all understand that a republic is the rule of law, you must also understand that we can’t have the rule of law if every one doesn’t respect the law.  People don’t respect the law, each other, themselves and private property or anything else unless they have a good base in  morals and ethics.  Other wise, we are begging for the rule of force.  You now understand why government attacks religion.  Government types understand that government is nothing but force.  Those that are in government want bigger government, more power, and more money for themselves.
They have ran the teaching of morals out of public schools under the some made up doctrine of the”separation of Church and State.”  That is an all out attack on the first Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”  That is the separation of the State from religion.  They can’t prohibit the free exercise anywhere.  There is no “except on government property” clause here.  It also doesn’t say, “unless it offends someone else.”

“…governing powers have ever shown disposition to weaken and remove.  Of the first kind for instance, is freedom of Religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free press.”  Thomas Jefferson to N. Webster, 1790  (bold mine)  Now you know why government attacks religion first.  Government by its very nature is evil.  That’s why we wrote a Constitution to try and limit its scope.  The Bill of Rights would have better lent itself to our understanding if it had been called the “Bill of Further Limitations on this Government.”  I mean look at it, the tenth Amendment says that if we forgot anything, you can’t do that either!

Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation,  ” Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.”

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

I have found a wonderful little booklet that I have personally seen turn around the lives of everyone that has the good fortune to get their hands on.  Each chapter is only one or two pages for those of the short attention span.  It has no connection to any religion and can be read anywhere.  It has chapters with titles like:”Take Care of Yourself,” Be Temperate”  “Don’t be Promiscuous, “Love and Help Children” “Be Industrious” “Be Worthy of Trust” “Support a Government Designed And Run For All The People” and  more..

People of all ages need direction today, particularly our children.  Now you know why.  We the People are under siege from every quarter, we always are.  Here is how to obtain these wonderful pamphlets:

“The Way to Happiness Foundation.” 1-800-255-7906 or 1-818-254-0600

201 E. Broadway,

Glendale, CA 91205 USA

For all of you already holding “The way to Happiness” classes for kids, you don’t know how integral  you are to restoring our Republic..

Do not do nothing!

John Conway

Second (article) Amendment

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;"

    Wait, I thought it was the FBI
 that
 executes the law of the land at places like Waco?
Just remember that the government in DC is not our government, and never has been.  It is
a central government.  Lets see, these things just in the 20th century have killed over
170,000,000 (that's million) of their own people.  First it disarms us, then it kills us.

    Our only hope of survival with one of these things is being armed with the latest
weapons.  So here we are, all men being called to duty.  Who is going to protect the
family?   Ladies, you need to be trained as well.

    When the powers here saw the fit that the Mexican Militias gave us, they acted fast in
1903 with this:

Militia Act of 1903

The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, was the result of a program of reform and reorganization in the military establishment initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish-American War of 1898 after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire United States military.

United States Senator Charles Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard, sponsored the 1903 act, which gave Federal status to the militia. Under this legislation the organized militia of the States was required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

Today, the National Guard is a reserve force for the Federal standing Army.

“Governments need armies to protect them against their enslaved and opposed subjects.”  Leo Tolstoy (1893)

Dick ACT?  Congress has no power to alter our Constitution by passing an ACT!  It has to be an Amendment approved by the States.  Here is the supreme Courts ruling on “Acts.”

“An unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no right’s; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Norton V. Shelby County 118-LL5, 425,442

Article 1 section 8,  Congress shall have the power “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;”

Here is what George Washington had to saqy about the military:

“Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

Have we grown so numb that we don’t remember what brought Russia down?  It was the money they lost fighting in Afghanistan.  Obama just asked Congress for another sixty billion to keep fighting this year alone.  We have been at it for seven years now.  We’re out front, and the elite are plundering both sides  behind the scenes.

300,000 barrels of oil a day unaccounted for in Iraq.  A gas pipeline being built across Afghanistan.  Are we going to prosper from any of this?  NEVER!

They are using our resources to steal their resources.

Next–How to Amend the Constitution

Citizen Conway