Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - The US Constitution’s framers did not consider a democracy because they knew that democracies were a prelude to tyranny. In 1787, when Elizabeth Willing Powel asked Ben Franklin, what sort of government the Constitutional Convention had formed, she actually asked whether it had been a “Monarchy” or “Republic.” The idea that it would have been a democracy so idiotic that it was not even an option.
The Framers Had Good Reason to Shun a Democracy
The framers realized that a democracy is the second worst form of government because it soon becomes a tyranny, e.g., monarchy, dictatorship. The evils of a democracy’s majority rule were well understood as far back as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. After all, Plato wrote The Republic and not The Democracy. Today, the propaganda against the Republic and in favor of a democracy is overwhelming. Ask Americans if majority rule is good, and virtually everyone will say, “Yes,” but the Constitution’s framers would have exclaimed, “No way! Are you insane?”
Because only a lout would have favored a democracy, very little time was spent distinguishing it from a Republic. (De Tocqueville discussed it because he was French.) Because all the founding fathers were well educated in political philosophy, it would have been an insult to waste time discussing the difference between a republic and a democracy. Did Vin Scully explain why the Dodgers did not play the Rams in the World Series? AI is no benefit. When quizzed to support its claim that Madison supported a democracy, AI quotes Madison’s support for Republic. Often, AI operates on the basis of “garbage in, garbage out,” e.g., Musk's AI chatbot, Grok,
The Constitutional Convention’s Dilemma
The framers had to create a new government with a central government strong enough to hold together the Union, but prevent too much power in one branch of government. Wherever there was power, the danger of tyranny had to be checked. That’s why Congress has two houses and the one which was elected by the popular vote served only two years. The more power voters had, the greater the chance for disaster.
The framers never considered a democracy because a democracy is based on the Will of the Majority as expressed in elections. In a democracy whoever gets elected has a mandate to rule as he, it, or they see fit. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) and again Dred Scott’s reincarnation, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization 597 U.S. 215 (2022), there are no enduring inalienable rights. In Dred Scott, Blacks had only the rights which the voters gave them, and in Dobbs, women lack the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Instead, their rights depend on voters of each state. Anyone, who thinks that US Supreme Court Justices have loyalty to Constitution and inalienable rights, lives in Delusionville. Both cases are based on how a democracy functions. Both cases subjugate the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution to the votes of the majority; whoever gets a majority of votes has a mandate to implement his policies without regard to the Constitution or existing statutes.
The US Supreme Court has no use for the Constitution’s checks and balances, since the court’s majority favors a different form of government, a military dictatorship. Chief Justice Roberts and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Thune prefer the obfuscatory term “Unitary Executive.” That means all power rests in one place, i.e., the President who is the chief executive. In case, anyone fails to recognize the President’s total power, the Supreme Court has explicitly placed the president above the law, including above the Constitution. In Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), Chief Justice Roberts held that Trump has immunity for engaging in violent crimes. All Trump has to do is claim that he murdered someone as part of his “core duties.” This scenario is not farfetched; Trump has already done it — repeatedly. There is no law justifying Trump’s murdering scores of innocent men in boats in the Caribbean Sea. Assuming arguendo, they were bringing drugs to the United States, that is not a capital offense. Also, they were entitled to trials with Due Process. Trump’s false claim that we are at war with a narco terrorist gang is good enough for Chief Justice Roberts. When Chief Justice granted Trump immunity for violating criminal behavior, he placed whatever Trump does above the US Constitution. Nowhere did Chief Justice qualify his grant of immunity by saying that the President was subject to the US Constitution. Roberts’s decision states:
“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”
Notice that all that Trump has to do is claim he is committing murder as part of a “core constitutional duty.” He claims he is protecting the US from “invasion by Cartels” with zero proof anyone is part of a cartel. Also, note Trump now claims that he has to protect America from “the enemies within” as justification to send the US military to cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York.
If Americans knew that we are a Republic with strong constitutional restrictions on the President and equally strong duties on Senators and Justices to protect the Constitution, then the American public’s outrage would be sufficient to stop Trump’s subversion of the US Constitution. (Please realize that Nancy Pelosi and Wokeism play a major role in destroying the US Constitution.)
Trump is protected by an ignorant public who thinks America is a democracy so that whoever wins an election has a mandate to implement his policies without regard to the Constitution or existing law. That’s why Sen. John Thune is a worse traitor than Benedict Arnold. As Senate Majority Leader, Thune had an affirmative constitutional duty to protect the other Senators from Trump’s blackmail that if they performed their constitutional duty to “reject” his grossly incompetent nominees, they would be primaried and lose their seat. Instead, John Thune defecated on his Constitutional duty to protect the Republic, but instead, he invoked the essence of a democracy that whoever wins an election has a mandate to implement his polices without interference from Congress or the Courts.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a former Los Angeles-based attorney, an author, and political commentator. A long-time contributor to CityWatchLA, he is known for his incisive critiques of City Hall and judicial corruption, as well as his analysis of political and constitutional issues. Abrams blends legal insight with historical and philosophical depth to challenge conventional narratives. A passionate defender of civic integrity and transparency, he aims to expose misuse of power and advocate for systemic reform in local government. You may email him at [email protected])
