• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Without God, there are no inalienable rights

My God or your God?

this is what confuses people, the founders used the word god, to mean a--------> higher authority.

a higher authority above man or governments, this way both of those 2 entities have no power to create for themselves rights, or take away rights of others, because their are not higher then god, and don't have the power to create and disperse or remove rights.

the term of the founders is subjective because it states the creator, AND natures god.
 
are you not one who says people can create, their own rights?.......yes or no?
That question is actually a false Dilemma and over simplified.

if you can create your own rights, can you not create rights to anything.....yes or no?
We were not able to get past the first question which the second is reliant on how I answered the first question,

it you create rights to anything, can you not create rights, which would infringe on the rights of others since you have the power of creation.......yes or no?
Obviously you believe that I will just simply answer your leading questions without thinking.

Lets back up a little here. While are our unalienable rights reliant on those rights being granted by a god or a higher authority? Why cant unalienable rights just be natural born rights? We are all equally human which shows that our rights are a characteristic of the human species.

The pitfall of basing our basic human rights on a higher authority is that it takes faith to believe in a higher authority because there can be no proof of that authority existing. So it could be argued that we as humans have no rights since there can be no proof of it. In other words someone could just tell us that we are talking out of our asses. Really the founders were just appeasing a religious public and took the easy road rather than the philosophical road. Which was probably because there really isnt much of a philosophical leg to stand on when it comes to rights.

But you are also making another logical fallacy that I should point out. Which is related to the your first premise. Our entire Government was made by humans. Every law and every authority that our government has is created by the human mind. It is meaningless to assert that a creator of some sort granted us unalienable rights when it is us humans that must protect our rights from other humans. Interestingly our countries founders did not apply those unalienable rights granted by some mysterious creator to women and slaves. It took many years to get those unalienable rights for those two sections of society. I would call denying those unalienable rights a huge mistake. But we as a country survived that tragedy because the people do ultimately have the power in this country.

Your fear of change and your fear of the people shows me that you do not want a progressive advancement of society at large or this country. The dynamics of changed a huge amount since the founders lived. Even the founders progressed their ideas while they were alive. Stagnation will kill any country. Had people before us listened to your whims then we would still have slaves and women would have no unalienable rights. The doesnt mean that things are perfect, the people must keep their vigilance and I have every confidence in our Constitution. It has so far stopped the Communists and the Nazis from destroying our Government.
 
That question is actually a false Dilemma and over simplified.

We were not able to get past the first question which the second is reliant on how I answered the first question,

Obviously you believe that I will just simply answer your leading questions without thinking.

Lets back up a little here. While are our unalienable rights reliant on those rights being granted by a god or a higher authority? Why cant unalienable rights just be natural born rights? We are all equally human which shows that our rights are a characteristic of the human species.

The pitfall of basing our basic human rights on a higher authority is that it takes faith to believe in a higher authority because there can be no proof of that authority existing. So it could be argued that we as humans have no rights since there can be no proof of it. In other words someone could just tell us that we are talking out of our asses. Really the founders were just appeasing a religious public and took the easy road rather than the philosophical road. Which was probably because there really isnt much of a philosophical leg to stand on when it comes to rights.

But you are also making another logical fallacy that I should point out. Which is related to the your first premise. Our entire Government was made by humans. Every law and every authority that our government has is created by the human mind. It is meaningless to assert that a creator of some sort granted us unalienable rights when it is us humans that must protect our rights from other humans. Interestingly our countries founders did not apply those unalienable rights granted by some mysterious creator to women and slaves. It took many years to get those unalienable rights for those two sections of society. I would call denying those unalienable rights a huge mistake. But we as a country survived that tragedy because the people do ultimately have the power in this country.

Your fear of change and your fear of the people shows me that you do not want a progressive advancement of society at large or this country. The dynamics of changed a huge amount since the founders lived. Even the founders progressed their ideas while they were alive. Stagnation will kill any country. Had people before us listened to your whims then we would still have slaves and women would have no unalienable rights. The doesnt mean that things are perfect, the people must keep their vigilance and I have every confidence in our Constitution. It has so far stopped the Communists and the Nazis from destroying our Government.

as simple as i can make it.

if the people can create their own rights, then they can take away rights, because the power flows both ways.

this means no piece of paper like the Constitution or the BOR is secure, because the power of the people, meaning the majority of ANY democracy can take them away, and they are not unalienable.
 
as simple as i can make it.

if the people can create their own rights, then they can take away rights, because the power flows both ways.

this means no piece of paper like the Constitution or the BOR is secure, because the power of the people, meaning the majority of ANY democracy can take them away, and they are not unalienable.

While we are keeping things simple, NO CONSTITUTION NO AMERICA.

Did you even attempt to read what I wrote or did you just feel like repeating yourself yet again? This thread is full of people challenging your claims and all that you seem to be able to do is keep repeating the same thing over and over while never addressing anything that anyone said directly. Perhaps I talked over your head? I mean I did not say anything about democracy yet you come back arguing against democracy as if I just said something about it. Its like you only have one line to your argument and cannot go beyond that one argument even if the conversation does not involve it.

Long before the 17th Amendment, well actually from the start women and slaves had zero unalienable rights. It took many years to change that for the good. And it was the will of the American people that changed that reality. I suspect that you do not understand some simple concepts. You seem unaware that there are many different types of democracies. All that you can seem to comprehend is direct democracy.

First you need to learn about different types of governments. WHat you also need to do is question why your definition of American Government differs from literally everyone elses.

Types of Government

Types of Governments
Governments can be classified into several types. Some of the more common types of governments are:
1. Democracy
The word "democracy" literally means "rule by the people." In a democracy, the people govern.
2. Republic
A literal democracy is impossible in a political system containing more than a few people. All "democracies" are really republics. In a republic, the people elect representatives to make and enforce laws.
3. Monarchy
A monarchy consists of rule by a king or queen. Sometimes a king is called an "emperor," especially if there is a large empire, such as China before 1911. There are no large monarchies today. The United Kingdom, which has a queen, is really a republic because the queen has virtually no political power.
4. Aristocracy
An aristocracy is rule by the aristocrats. Aristocrats are typically wealthy, educated people. Many monarchies have really been ruled by aristocrats. Today, typically, the term "aristocracy" is used negatively to accuse a republic of being dominated by rich people, such as saying, "The United States has become an aristocracy."
5. Dictatorship
A dictatorship consists of rule by one person or a group of people. Very few dictators admit they are dictators; they almost always claim to be leaders of democracies. The dictator may be one person, such as Castro in Cuba or Hitler in Germany, or a group of people, such as the Communist Party in China.
6. Democratic Republic

Usually, a "democratic republic" is not democratic and is not a republic. A government that officially calls itself a "democratic republic" is usually a dictatorship. Communist dictatorships have been especially prone to use this term. For example, the official name of North Vietnam was "The Democratic Republic of Vietnam." China uses a variant, "The People's Republic of China."
 
Lets back up a little here. While are our unalienable rights reliant on those rights being granted by a god or a higher authority? Why cant unalienable rights just be natural born rights? We are all equally human which shows that our rights are a characteristic of the human species.

i do believe everyone is born with natural rights.....that is why the founders also state...nature's god..rights which are natural too the body.

but i or my government does not have the authority to force every other nation on the planet, to recognize natural rights for their people.

when people believe they possess the power to create their own rights...THEN THAT THINKING IS VERY DANGEROUS.

but once man can create his own rights, he will create his own rights to many things, and trample on the rights of others.

because those who have the power to create, and put their rights into law, are not restrained by anything, not even a BOR.

there is this idea, that some people have that the constitution is a safe guard, against tyranny, it once was, but as people believe they possess the power, theirs is a will of the people,....nothing is secure.

the founders did not create a 'will of the people". if you read the works of Adams he does not like representative democracy.

he refers to America as a monarchy, aristocracy, and a democracy,..... a mixed government.

the monarchy watched by the aristocracy, the aristocracy watched by the people, keeping the other in check.
 
Last edited:
i do believe everyone is born with natural rights.....that is why the founders also state...nature's god..rights which are natural too the body.

but i or my government does not have the authority to force every other nation on the planet, to recognize natural rights for their people.

when people believe they possess the power to create their own rights...THEN THAT THINKING IS VERY DANGEROUS.

but once man can create his own rights, he will create his own rights to many things, and trample on the rights of others.

because those who have the power to create, and put their rights into law, are not restrained by anything, not even a BOR.

there is this idea, that some people have that the constitution is a safe guard, against tyranny, it once was, but as people believe they possess the power, theirs is a will of the people,....nothing is secure.

the founders did not create a 'will of the people". if you read the works of Adams he does not like representative democracy.

he refers to America as a monarchy, aristocracy, and a democracy,..... a mixed government.

the monarchy watched by the aristocracy, the aristocracy watched by the people, keeping the other in check.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution is the will of the people. We have a justice system which was established by the Constitution. The Constitution secures liberty, without liberty the will of the people will smash the government to pieces. We the people are the end of the line the main element that makes sure things are right. We the people are what the government answers too. The US Government wouldnt be the US Government if we the people disprove of it.

Again you construe reality to meat your argument. Let me explain it for you. You say that "Adams he does not like representative democracy". Yet the Constitution says this: Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2
1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.


I see now that you are asserting that the framers did indeed put democracy in our Government. Though you didnt get it right. There are three branches in our Government: Legislative Branch,
Executive Branch, and Judicial Branch. checks and balances -- Limits imposed on all branches of government by giving each the right to amend acts of the other branches. All three branches serve we the people. We the people own the Government, meaning that the Government cannot act on its own without the approval of the people.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution is the will of the people. We have a justice system which was established by the Constitution. The Constitution secures liberty, without liberty the will of the people will smash the government to pieces. We the people are the end of the line the main element that makes sure things are right. We the people are what the government answers too. The US Government wouldnt be the US Government if we the people disprove of it.

Again you construe reality to meat your argument. Let me explain it for you. You say that "Adams he does not like representative democracy". Yet the Constitution says this: Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2
1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.


I see now that you are asserting that the framers did indeed put democracy in our Government. Though you didnt get it right. There are three branches in our Government: Legislative Branch,
Executive Branch, and Judicial Branch. checks and balances -- Limits imposed on all branches of government by giving each the right to amend acts of the other branches. All three branches serve we the people. We the people own the Government, meaning that the Government cannot act on its own without the approval of the people.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson


i posted another story under the constitution forum, it says what i have been saying all along.

the founders did not create a "will of the people", because in their minds, that would be dangerous, and something they wanted to avoid, because people must be constrained by the law

remember to stay to the original constitution, not how it is constructed today.

Madison makes a contrast between republican government and democratic government is federalist #10, and he goes with republican government, In The Federalist, no. 63, Madison writes that the "true distinction" of American government "lies in the total ----->exclusion of the people, in their (collective capacity) from any share" in the government...the key words are .....collective capacity..........what does obama speak of?......collectivism.

the people cannot be a mob, of collective of people to run the government, because we are not a democracy with democratic principles, but with republican principles, were the law governors.
 
i posted another story under the constitution forum, it says what i have been saying all along.

the founders did not create a "will of the people", because in their minds, that would be dangerous, and something they wanted to avoid, because people must be constrained by the law

remember to stay to the original constitution, not how it is constructed today.

Madison makes a contrast between republican government and democratic government is federalist #10, and he goes with republican government, In The Federalist, no. 63, Madison writes that the "true distinction" of American government "lies in the total ----->exclusion of the people, in their (collective capacity) from any share" in the government...the key words are .....collective capacity..........what does obama speak of?......collectivism.

the people cannot be a mob, of collective of people to run the government, because we are not a democracy with democratic principles, but with republican principles, were the law governors.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson


"The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived."
James Madison


However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. George Washington

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth. - George Washington

We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. James Madison The Federalist No. 45


I am guessing that you are nothing but a parrot incapable of real debate. The Government belongs to the people, and it is the will of we the people that mold and build this nation not the Government.

The Constitution was never static so your request is naive at best.

And true the House of Representatives, The Presidency, and the Judicial system do not have direct democracy in their functions. Im not sure why you are pointing out the obvious as if no one knows how our Government works. I am guessing that your line of argument is aimed at people that have no clue about how the Government works. BTW I am not one of those people so your tactic is falling flat on its face.

Obama? Why are you talking about Obama the election is over?

In the most pure democracies of Greece, many of the executive functions were performed, not by the people themselves, but by officers elected by the people, and representing the people in their executive capacity.

Prior to the reform of Solon, Athens was governed by nine Archons, annually elected by the people at large. The degree of power delegated to them seems to be left in great obscurity. Subsequent to that period, we find an assembly, first of four, and afterwards of six hundred members, annually elected by the people; and partially representing them in their legislative capacity, since they were not only associated with the people in the function of making laws, but had the exclusive right of originating legislative propositions to the people. The senate of Carthage, also, whatever might be its power, or the duration of its appointment, appears to have been elective by the suffrages of the people. Similar instances might be traced in most, if not all the popular governments of antiquity.

Lastly, in Sparta we meet with the Ephori, and in Rome with the Tribunes; two bodies, small indeed in numbers, but annually elected by the whole body of the people, and considered as the representatives of the people, almost in their plenipotentiary capacity. The Cosmi of Crete were also annually elected by the people, and have been considered by some authors as an institution analogous to those of Sparta and Rome, with this difference only, that in the election of that representative body the right of suffrage was communicated to a part only of the people.

From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former. The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States. But to insure to this advantage its full effect, we must be careful not to separate it from the other advantage, of an extensive territory. For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece


You completely took this out of context, which was dishonest and makes your claims invalid because of your dishonesty. The thing is that Madison was talking about the faults of the pure democracies of Greece, he was not saying that our Government excludes the people. He was saying that the democracies of Greece excluded the people. You just simply got it wrong.

And to your last point give it up man, America is a type of a democracy but not a pure democracy. And no one has claimed in this entire thread that America is a pure democracy yet you keep arguing against that premise as if someone said. Why is that? Is that the only argument that you know or something?
 
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson


"The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived."
James Madison


However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. George Washington

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth. - George Washington

We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. James Madison The Federalist No. 45


I am guessing that you are nothing but a parrot incapable of real debate. The Government belongs to the people, and it is the will of we the people that mold and build this nation not the Government.

The Constitution was never static so your request is naive at best.

And true the House of Representatives, The Presidency, and the Judicial system do not have direct democracy in their functions. Im not sure why you are pointing out the obvious as if no one knows how our Government works. I am guessing that your line of argument is aimed at people that have no clue about how the Government works. BTW I am not one of those people so your tactic is falling flat on its face.

Obama? Why are you talking about Obama the election is over?

In the most pure democracies of Greece, many of the executive functions were performed, not by the people themselves, but by officers elected by the people, and representing the people in their executive capacity.

Prior to the reform of Solon, Athens was governed by nine Archons, annually elected by the people at large. The degree of power delegated to them seems to be left in great obscurity. Subsequent to that period, we find an assembly, first of four, and afterwards of six hundred members, annually elected by the people; and partially representing them in their legislative capacity, since they were not only associated with the people in the function of making laws, but had the exclusive right of originating legislative propositions to the people. The senate of Carthage, also, whatever might be its power, or the duration of its appointment, appears to have been elective by the suffrages of the people. Similar instances might be traced in most, if not all the popular governments of antiquity.

Lastly, in Sparta we meet with the Ephori, and in Rome with the Tribunes; two bodies, small indeed in numbers, but annually elected by the whole body of the people, and considered as the representatives of the people, almost in their plenipotentiary capacity. The Cosmi of Crete were also annually elected by the people, and have been considered by some authors as an institution analogous to those of Sparta and Rome, with this difference only, that in the election of that representative body the right of suffrage was communicated to a part only of the people.

From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former. The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States. But to insure to this advantage its full effect, we must be careful not to separate it from the other advantage, of an extensive territory. For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece


You completely took this out of context, which was dishonest and makes your claims invalid because of your dishonesty. The thing is that Madison was talking about the faults of the pure democracies of Greece, he was not saying that our Government excludes the people. He was saying that the democracies of Greece excluded the people. You just simply got it wrong.

And to your last point give it up man, America is a type of a democracy but not a pure democracy. And no one has claimed in this entire thread that America is a pure democracy yet you keep arguing against that premise as if someone said. Why is that? Is that the only argument that you know or something?


first , did you read the other piece i posted on how the government was constructed, title "the congress presidency, and democracy"...it is a very good piece on what i am saying.

democracy NO MATTER what form it takes, deals in the (self-interest of the people), be it direct or simple democracy as Adams puts it or representative..........BOTH TYPES deal in (self-interest) ......which is what destroys governments).

Adams in his works vol 6 describes both democracies in the same matter be it direct or representative, as being unstable and filled self interest, the American founders gave the people one avenue of voting directly, and that was your congressman, this gives you .............(1) ONE vote of --------->self-interest only.

the founders did not give you a vote of self-interest in the senate or the president, because they wanted to (avoid) the self-interest of people .........in electing those two positions of power..........so we have the electoral collage, and senators appointed by state legislators, and also why the offices of those positions are , 2, 4, and 6 years.

i could sit here and type this message i am trying to convey to you, but the story i posted would be a much clearer message. ....the only democratic part of our government by the founders, was the 1 direct vote of your congressman.

the founders used indirect voting and the separation of powers, to KEEP SELF-INTEREST AT BAY.............

Aristotle states ........democracy, is voting for your self-interest.

what do we see in our union today, people voting in there self-interest........whenever people vote ,they vote for the politicians who will promise them the most.............it is the excesses of what people want ( free stuff), that is destroying this nation.

the founders did not give us the "will of the people", .........but it has turned into that very thing, .........and that "will" is (give me ,give me, give me).............it will be our downfall.

again please read the posting i stated in the beginning.
 
first , did you read the other piece i posted on how the government was constructed, title "the congress presidency, and democracy"...it is a very good piece on what i am saying.

democracy NO MATTER what form it takes, deals in the (self-interest of the people), be it direct or simple democracy as Adams puts it or representative..........BOTH TYPES deal in (self-interest) ......which is what destroys governments).

Adams in his works vol 6 describes both democracies in the same matter be it direct or representative, as being unstable and filled self interest, the American founders gave the people one avenue of voting directly, and that was your congressman, this gives you .............(1) ONE vote of --------->self-interest only.

the founders did not give you a vote of self-interest in the senate or the president, because they wanted to (avoid) the self-interest of people .........in electing those two positions of power..........so we have the electoral collage, and senators appointed by state legislators, and also why the offices of those positions are , 2, 4, and 6 years.

i could sit here and type this message i am trying to convey to you, but the story i posted would be a much clearer message. ....the only democratic part of our government by the founders, was the 1 direct vote of your congressman.

the founders used indirect voting and the separation of powers, to KEEP SELF-INTEREST AT BAY.............

Aristotle states ........democracy, is voting for your self-interest.

what do we see in our union today, people voting in there self-interest........whenever people vote ,they vote for the politicians who will promise them the most.............it is the excesses of what people want ( free stuff), that is destroying this nation.

the founders did not give us the "will of the people", .........but it has turned into that very thing, .........and that "will" is (give me ,give me, give me).............it will be our downfall.

again please read the posting i stated in the beginning.

Let me get this straight, you are telling us that the framers were against democracy in any form and even go as far as asserting that all democracies will fail, but then they turn around and make democracy an element of our mixed government?

he refers to America as a monarchy, aristocracy, and a democracy,..... a mixed government.

I dont think that you have thought this all the way through. I mean you keep trying to assert that America was never supposed to be a democracy at all but then clearly that is not true since indeed there are elements of democracy in our Government that were put there by the very people you keep claiming hated democracy and did not intend for America to be a democracy.

You couldnt get anymore hypocritical than what you have been telling us.

And then you go even further and claim that self interest is a bad thing altogether. The part that you dont seem to understand is that we have never been nor has anyone promoted a pure direct democracy but instead a American type of democracy.

And once again you have ignored everything that I said and just repeated your dogma. It would seem that you cannot defend your position but only try to force it on others. Lol you remind me of someone else that behaved the same way on the same subject. And in the end failed to get beyond their assertion and never could stand up in the debate.
 
Let me get this straight, you are telling us that the framers were against democracy in any form and even go as far as asserting that all democracies will fail, but then they turn around and make democracy an element of our mixed government?

he refers to America as a monarchy, aristocracy, and a democracy,..... a mixed government.

I dont think that you have thought this all the way through. I mean you keep trying to assert that America was never supposed to be a democracy at all but then clearly that is not true since indeed there are elements of democracy in our Government that were put there by the very people you keep claiming hated democracy and did not intend for America to be a democracy.

You couldnt get anymore hypocritical than what you have been telling us.

And then you go even further and claim that self interest is a bad thing altogether. The part that you dont seem to understand is that we have never been nor has anyone promoted a pure direct democracy but instead a American type of democracy.

And once again you have ignored everything that I said and just repeated your dogma. It would seem that you cannot defend your position but only try to force it on others. Lol you remind me of someone else that behaved the same way on the same subject. And in the end failed to get beyond their assertion and never could stand up in the debate.



i am going to post the story again in this section, because it explains my position much better .
 
Last edited:
Congress, the Presidency, and Democracy:
Looking Back

Marc Warren Stier
Introduction

Everyone in the United States is in favor of democracy. But we don't all agree about what it means. Most of us believe that the people should have a large degree of control over the government and the policies it makes. To say that some institutional innovation would enhance the influence of the people on the government is to provide a justification for change. By the same token, a proposal that seems to reduce popular control over the government is automatically suspect.

Is this the view that the Founders of our Constitution would have taken? That is one of the questions we will consider in this College-Community Forum. Another is whether we should still accept the conception of democracy found in the Constitution. In this essay I want to first sketch the conception of democracy embodied in the Constitution and expressed in the most authoritative interpretation of it, The Federalist. Then I will outline some of the criticisms of the Founders' views of democracy that were made during the ratification debates and since. Of course, there is no consensus about what the Constitution means or about which criticisms of the Constitution, if any, deserve to be taken seriously. So rather than attempt to be authoritative, let this be one person's view, meant to stimulate questions, not answer them.

The Origins of the Constitution

The act of proposing a new Constitution was itself unconstitutional. Charged with suggesting some amendments to the Articles of Confederation to be adopted by the state governments, the Constitutional Convention set out an entirely new form of government, whose ratification was in the hands of conventions of the people in each of the States. This act was inspired by a sense of crisis. The Founders were convinced that only a new and strong central government could deal with the myriad problems facing the new nation. Foreign challenges weighed heavily on their minds. And economic troubles were another concern, not least because these difficulties had seemed to exacerbate the tendency in some states to unstable and dangerous government. The Founders saw state governments which were dominated by large legislatures whose members were in turn responsive to strong and shifting currents of popular opinion. They worried that the rights to life, liberty, and—perhaps especially—property, would be infringed upon by quickly changing laws. They particularly feared the laws meant to protect the less well off from the effects of Post-Revolutionary War recessions.

The remedy for these difficulties was a strong central government, empowered to tax, raise an army and protect the republican character of the state governments. The trouble was, however, that the cure might be worse than the disease. For who could guarantee that a new central government would be less tyrannical than the central government against which the new nation had so recently revolted? The Founders shared the belief that the temptations of power could lead the officers of a central government to seek their own interest at the expense of the happiness or the rights of the citizenry. But that was not the only risk. For the Founders quickly agreed that any central government in the United States would have to have a firm democratic base. And democratic government raised the specter of tyranny of the majority. The Founders believed that democratic governments tended to act at the behest of the majority even to the extent of trampling on the rights of a minority, or acting against the long term interests of the majority itself. And they were well aware that the majority in any polity and society was likely to consist of poorer people who would be tempted to redistribute the property of the rich.

So the Founders had to design a government which was at base democratic and yet which could meet two tests. It had to protect the people from the government and from themselves as well. But they did not avail themselves of the traditional solutions to this problem. The customary theory was that democratic government could only survive if the people were virtuous, that is, if they were willing to put the common good and the protection of the rights of man over their own interests. The Founders could not place their hope on civic virtue in the people because the traditional conception held that a virtuous people could only arise in a small country, in which everyone was knowledgeable about and took part in public affairs.[1] This, however, was an impossibility in a country that was already very large. The Founders would not place their hope in a virtuous people because they had little confidence that the people in even the best of circumstances could remain virtuous for long. The Founders were, if not pessimistic, then at least realistic about what could be expected of human nature.

With traditional solutions unavailing, the Founders were forced to innovate. The new system of government they devised was as revolutionary as the act of dissolving the ties between the colonies and Great Britain.

Republican Government

The form of government embodied in the Constitution is called republican in The Federalist. The term republican is used there in a new way, however. Before it had meant any non-monarchial government. Now it means, in Madison's words,

"a government which derives all of its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people and is administered by persons holding office during pleasure for a limited period or during good behavior...It is sufficient for such government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified...(The Federalist, no. 39).

In redefining republican government, Madison establishes that the new government will be largely democratic. It will, in other words, be a government which must ultimately do what the people demand. This is how the tyranny of government is to be prevented. In calling the government republican rather than democratic, however, Madison indicates that the power of the majority will be constrained. Rather than rule directly, the people will only rule through representatives, some of whom are chosen in indirect ways from among parts of the people rather than the people as a whole.

Republican is not the preferred term today. Those who want to emphasize the democratic element in the Constitution—or who are reluctant to acknowledge how democracy is qualified in our Constitution—distinguish between the representative democracy established by the Constitution and the direct democracy characteristic of ancient Athens or the contemporary town meeting. But republican may be a better word, since it helps us recognize that our form of government was not meant to be wholly democratic in character. The rule of the people is constrained in a republic.

Saying that our form of government is republican establishes something about its character. But we will not have understood the design of the Constitution fully until we grasp how and by whom the power of the people is to be constrained. To grasp the limits on democracy we must examine three of the institutional features of the government as established by the Constitution: the system of representation, the checks and balances and the idea of a large commercial republic.

The System of Representation

One way in which popular control over government is limited is through the system of representation. In The Federalist, no. 63, Madison writes that the "true distinction" of American government "lies in the( total exclusion of the people), in their (collective capacity) from any share" in the government. Because they choose their representatives, the people have control over the government. Because they govern only through representatives, that control is limited.[2]

The particular scheme of representation in the Constitution further weakens the popular control of government. The House of Representatives was designed to be the institution by which the popular will could most directly be expressed. The Founders expected that most House members would be elected by the people for the relatively short term of two years. However, on the original design of the constitution, the Senate and the President were not so closely tied to the people. They were to be indirectly elected by the state legislatures and the electoral college respectively. And the terms of the Senate and President were longer than that of the Representatives so as to further reduce the impact of public demands. Finally, the Supreme Court was most distant from the people, as it was composed of individuals selected for life by the President with the consent of the Senate.

Government officials in a republic have some independence from the people. With this independence, they can bring their own wisdom to bear on public policy. And they can resist popular demands for unwise or tyrannical policies, at least for a time. Public officials thus have an opportunity to educate and lead rather than just take orders from the people. So here it is the government that constrains the power of the people.[3]

That is part of the truth, but not the whole story. For the Founders recognized what is so clear today: while everyone has the same right to run for office, not everyone has the same opportunity to be elected. The Founders were aware that only those citizens known to the public by reason of their wealth, education, private position or public experience could expect to attain the highest offices in the Federal government. And, even in 1789, House districts were large enough to limit the pool of viable candidates for Representative as well.

This presumably anti-democratic result was intended by the founders. For they wanted to insure that public officials would be drawn from the members of what they called the natural aristocracy. The Founders expected that those with talent, ability and ambition would be more prevalent among the wealthy, educated and prominent citizens likely to win office. And they believed that such government officials would be more inclined to respect the rights of others and more able to attain the common good. So it was not just government officials, but those with a certain social background who were meant to constrain the power of the people. In the last analysis, the people can determine the course of government. But they rule through public office holders who have an opportunity to exert their own influence.
 
Last edited:
The Checks and Balances

Under the system of checks and balances, each of the three branches of government has some partial share in the powers of government mainly assigned to the other two branches. Each branch can thus protect it's independence. Similarly, government is restrained in that the powers of the people are delegated to both State and Federal governments, each of which watches the other. How the checks and balances were meant to prevent tyranny by the government is the most well known aspect of the Constitutional design. There are other features of the checks and balances to which we should attend, however.

By dividing the delegated powers of the people among two different governments and the several branches in each, the checks and balances work to create what we can call deliberate government. New laws in the Federal government requires the approval of the House, the Senate and the President. And then it may face scrutiny by the Courts. Government is thus slow to act and a breadth of support among government officials is required to change government policy. Public office holders are forced to think, if not deeply, then at least for a period of time about the actions they take. Deliberate government insures that a wide range of opinions are heard and that hasty, ill thought out measures are more difficult to adopt.

Deliberate government not only constrains the government, but the people as well. For it stands in the way of the rapid adoption of public policies which compromise the rights of others or which are not in the common good, even if those policies are demanded by a majority of the people. Moreover, just as the checks and balances divide the government, working in connection with the system of representation, they divide the people as well. Although the President, Senators and Representatives are all selected directly or indirectly by the people, they represent very different constituencies—the whole nation, a state and a local district. This feature of the checks and balances has important consequences for popular control of government.[4]

Dividing the people by having them select more than one set of representatives enables most of the interests in the country to find some representation in the government. In particular, it provides an opportunity for relatively small interest groups to find some channel by which to make their presence known. Consider that a group of people who are a minority from a national or state perspective might be very powerful within some House district. Or, alternately, a group which is a minority in every House district in a state, might be large enough in the state taken as a whole to carry weight with a Senator. Multiple channels of representation also take account of the different and sometimes conflicting interests of any one group of people. What, for example, is the interest of the residents of a congressional district where an old and unnecessary military base is found? As citizens of the nation as a whole, they have an interest in a military which is strong yet not extravagant. But as residents of a locality where a military base is found, they also have an interest in that base remaining in operation no matter how unnecessary. The system of representation of the Constitution, along with the checks and balances, allows both of these interests to be voiced in Washington.

If most interests are represented in Washington, then the threat of tyranny of the majority is reduced. Tyranny of the majority is most likely when the people speak with one voice. However, a cacophony of voices is the most common product of the multiple channels by which the people are represented. Given that the President, the Senate, and the House represent the people in different ways, no simple majority of the people, however united, can have their will done in Washington. In order to accomplish anything, these dissonant voices must be brought into harmony. The combined effect of the checks and balances and the system of representation is to insure that harmony can only result if diverse interests are willing to compromise with one another. Moreover, to be effective, these diverse interests need to be made up of far more than fifty percent plus one of the American people. The Founders believed that the result would be public policy consonant with the public good and respectful of the rights of men and women.

The Large Commercial Republic

The system of representation was designed to limit popular control over the government. The checks and balances, working with the system of representation, was meant to divide the public and force policy to be the result of moderation and compromise. The third constitutional mechanism, the large commercial republic, was devised to attain both aims.

Of all the innovations of the Founders, this was the most striking. As I mentioned above, the traditional conception held that a republic could only be established in a small society, in which everyone could be knowledgeable about and take part in politics. Moreover, the traditional view was that a society which aimed at securing great wealth could not attain the public virtue which democratic politics demanded. For the effort to accumulate wealth leads men to always think of their own good, rather than the good of the country at large.

The Founders did not entirely disagree. They recognized that a large commercial society would lead many men and women to be self-interested. But they were convinced that human nature was such that human beings would often be self-interested anyway. They did hope that the people would be enlightened. But they were not willing to risk the future of the United States on this hope.

Thus, rather than dissuade people from the pursuit of wealth and commercial advantage, they decided to make use of this motive. And rather than limit the size of the country, they aimed to expand it. One advantage of territorial expansion and the growth of commerce—or economic growth as we would now put it—was that the country would be less dependent upon foreign powers and able to resist them if necessary. Another, perhaps more important, advantage of economic and territorial growth was that it would further divide the people.

We saw in the previous section that the Founders hoped to divide the people and arrange for most of the various interests in the country to be represented in the central government. The great advantage of a large commercial society was that it would lead to further divisions within the people. Why is the multiplication of interests—or factions, in Madison's terminology—so desirable? One aim is, once again, to insure that public policy is the result of compromise among many interests. Another aim is to further enhance the independence of government.

We can easily see how a large commercial society expands the range of interests in the spheres of economics and religion. A large and diverse territory would allow for various sorts of economic activity—agriculture, trade, manufacturing and finance—and many varieties of each type as well. No one economic interest could come to predominate. Politics in the old world had often revolved around conflicts between rich and poor. In the new world, politics was meant to focus on different types as well as amounts of property.

In 1789 the United States was already a religiously diverse country. The Founders were well aware that the very size of the country allowed for and encouraged this diversity. Moreover, many of the Founders hoped that the large territory of United States would stimulate immigration which would add to religious diversity.

The Founders believed that, as a result of this multiplication of factions, no majority would arise that was in complete agreement on all political issues.[5] To attain any end, the members of an interest group would have to form a coalition with other groups. Thus they would have to moderate their political claims and compromise their views. Moreover, no interest group could be sure it would always find itself in the winning coalition. A faction that recognizes that it may turn up in the minority on some issues is less likely to pursue policies which trample on the rights of others when it is in the majority. Thus the maintenance of religious freedom in America may have less to do with the First Amendment and more to do with the striking fact that the United States is one of the few countries in which no church includes a majority of citizens. We are all reluctant to see the government involved in religion because such involvement is as likely as not to be contrary to our religious beliefs.[6]

A large commercial republic thus divides the people and reduces the likelihood of rule by a tyrannical majority. It also enhances the independence of the government from the people. To see this, consider that our country is so diverse that even the districts of members of the House of Representatives tend to be heterogeneous. A Representative who comes from a district in which everyone thinks alike often has little choice about how to vote. For a Representative who consistently fails to vote as her constituents demand will soon be looking for other work. But where the district includes many different interest groups, the Representative has more freedom of action. She can decide which interest groups to support. Or, more likely, the Representative will try to find some compromise acceptable to many of interest groups in the district. Either way, the Representative's own views play a major role in the formulation of policy. By the same token, the impact of the people on policy is limited.
 
Criticisms of the Constitution

Through these three constitutional mechanisms the Founders tried to insure that popular control of government would be constrained. The government would stand against the people when necessary, and the division of the people would guarantee that public policy would be the result of moderation and compromise.

This intricate design has been subject to criticism from the day it was revealed to the people. The battle over ratification of the Constitution was strenuous. Indeed, conventions of the people in some states, including North Carolina, initially rejected the Constitution.

Two main lines of criticism hold that the limits the Constitution places on popular control over government are too severe. The first was put forward during the initial debate about the Constitution. The opponents to ratification, or Anti-Federalists as they were called, believed that the Constitutional design made government too independent of the people. Many of the Anti-Federalist adhered to the traditional conception of Republican government. They doubted that any government could retain its republican character if the people were not virtuous and not intimately involved in public life. They correctly understood that the Founders intended to give government officials some independence from the people. And they saw that these officials were not as likely to be drawn equally from all parts of the people.[7] The Anti-Federalists disapproved of both of these features of the Constitution. They decried what they saw as the aristocratic tendencies of the Constitution and claimed that those who were not rich would be excluded from participation in government. The result, they suspected, would be a government which served the interest of the elite or itself, rather the common good.

This critique of the Constitution has been a recurring theme in the history of American politics. Time and again, proponents of changes in our political institutions, not to mention candidates for public office, have argued that the Federal government is too responsive to the interests of the rich and government officials themselves and too little concerned with the good of the majority of citizens. Most of the transformations in our formal or informal political institutions--such as the election of Senators by the people in the states and the development of primaries--have been efforts to enhance popular control over public policy. So has the constitutional innovations in the state governments, such as the initiative and referendum.

A second strain of criticism of the Constitution developed in the 19th century and has recurred whenever people have come to believe that the common good and the rights of citizens are threatened more by the inaction of the Federal government than by the potential abuse of its power. When demands for new policy initiatives from the Federal government have arisen, the deliberate nature of our government has often been thought a grave liability. The difficulties in enacting civil rights legislation in the late 1950s and 1960s led many people to wonder if our government is too slow to act to protect the rights of our citizens. Similarly, environmental and economic problems in recent years have led to complaints that government works too slowly or, sometimes, not at all. The need to win the approval of many interest groups before legislation can be passed is often blamed for the failure to deal with these problems.

Those who desire less deliberate government have often focused their attention on the problem of divided government and have called for the partial elimination of the separation of powers. They have also argued that the checks and balances and system of representation divide the people to such an extent that the special interests are too well served while the interest of the people as a whole is forgotten. Various proposals for changing how political campaigns are financed and for strengthening the political parties in Congress aim to amplify the voice of the people as a whole. More radical proposals for changes in how we elect members of the House--such as the adoption of a system of proportional representation--are designed to attain the same end.

Neither of these criticisms is usually put forward as a radical rejection of the ideals of the Founders. Although the critics think the danger is exaggerated, few deny that the majority can be tyrannical or unwise. The idea that some balance is necessary between popular control over government and the independence of government from the people is deeply ingrained in our political tradition. So is the idea that there must be a balance between the voice of the people as a whole and the many and conflicting voices of different parts of the people. But the opponents of the Constitution argue that the Founders did not get the balance quite right, or that changes in our polity and society since 1787 require that the balance be shifted toward more popular control of government today.

On occasion, critics of the Constitution have gone further than this. In the 1960s, for example, proponents of participatory democracy repeated many of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists in a new form. They pointed out that, while the Founders were concerned about the dangers of popular control of government, they had expected the people to be involved in politics at least at the state and local level. But with the rise of large cities and states, and the growth of gigantic and powerful bureaucracies in the private and public sectors, the opportunities for political participation on the part of the people have been drastically diminished. People thus lack knowledge about politics and a concern for the common good. The proponents of participatory democracy claim that, as a result, government has become alienated from the people and the people alienated from each other. The remedies proposed by these critics of the Constitution include drastically decentralizing government and instituting opportunities for democratic control of corporate and public bureaucracies.

Defenders of the Constitution have replied with the Founders's arguments about the dangers of democratic government. Indeed, some people today suggest that most of what is wrong with our public policies is due to our straying from the original design. They argue that changes in the Constitution and the advent of television and public opinions polls lead to too much popular control over the government. Proposals such as those to lengthen the terms of the President and members of the House of Representatives are meant to reverse this tendency.

Conclusion

I began this essay with the question: is our presumption toward democracy the view embodied in the Constitution? The answer, I have suggested, is NO. The Founders believed that a strong element of popular control of government was the best means to secure the right of man and the public good. But, they also believed that unrestrained popular control of government was an evil to be avoided.

We have also seen that forceful criticisms of the Founder's views have been advanced throughout our history. The debate about popular control over the government--and thus about the meaning of democracy--will continue so long as the Republic survives. And thus we will have to join the debate and make up our minds about where we stand on this fundamental issue. There is probably no better way for us to understand what is involved in this debate than to look back and critically examine the ideas of the Founders and the philosophers, politicians, and citizens who have participated in this debate since 1787.
 
Back
Top Bottom