As the video states, a republic is the rule of law, not the rule of the majority. The American republic is based on natural law - laws that proceed from nature. Natural law includes the concept of inalienable rights, which all people have by virtue of their existence. For more information on inalienable rights, see my 5 part series:
The Inalienable Rights Series
Part 1: What are Inalienable Rights?Part 2: The Source of Inalienable Rights
Part 3: Liberty in Society and Government
Part 4: Government by Consent of the Governed
Part 5: Some Common Misconceptions
Linked up with WFMW, NOBH and WLWW.
I don't know if you're familiar with Blackstone's Commentaries, but that's where the definition of Natural Law that America's founders believed in came from. I have that excerpt saved on my computer somewhere. Actually, back in the day, if you read the entirety of his Commentaries, you were automatically qualified as an attorney in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI actually talk about this very subject (republic versus democracy) a little bit in the 2004 paper I posted on my blog today, about the Electoral College.
By the way, I'm not conservative, but I'm not liberal either....and I'm not sure why some people insist that evolution negates the existence of a creator God, because that is simply not the case. I'm also not sure why some people seem to feel that if one belief that they hold is shown to be false, then their entire belief system is threatened - because that is also not the case. I mention this because of your profile description to the left of the page. :) Just a few thoughts. I don't know how old you are, but I used to believe very similarly to what it seems that you do, in my teens and early 20s. After learning a bit more about life and people and God, however, my views changed a bit and I began to see a lot of colors, rather than simply black and white. Things are not always as simplistic and strict as a Sunday sermon would have you believe.
Jenny,
ReplyDeleteI have heard of Blackstone's commentaries, but have not read them. Many of the ideas about natural law were also explained in the writings of John Locke and some of his contemporaries.
Your post on the Electoral College is excellent. I have made some of the same arguments for the current system (though not yet on this blog). Thanks for sharing.
As for my views, I agree that just because one aspect of a person's belief system is shown false does not mean they must throw it out entirely. I also agree that things are not always simplistic. In fact, it often annoys me when people attempt to oversimplify complex issues, often to the point of inaccuracy. Often, the truth is complex and nuanced. However, not everything is grey.
I wouldn't say that evolution negates the existence of a creator God...but it does make Him superfluous and contradicts what the Biblical God says in His word. However, I am a creationist, not because I must be in order to keep my faith, but because the science best fits the creation paradigm. Evolution (as a theory that attempts to explain all biological diversity as the result of mutation and natural selection and that postulates that all life came from a common ancestor) falls short on evidence. Your comment seems to be implying that perhaps I am young and naive and will learn better as I get older and wiser. However, my views on creation do not spring from ignorance or blind faith. I have studied evolution and have a Master's degree in Biology. My rejection of evolution is based on science, not my faith.
I have just been talking with my children about the differences between democracy and republic in relation to the US government. Thank you for linking up with us over at NOBH.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Stopping by from NOBH!
ReplyDelete