Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - The authors of the US Constitution made a huge error which threatens us all today. It relied on the personal integrity of elected officials to carry out their constitutional duties. The duties of anyone who takes the oath to the Constitution are far more important than any rights which they gain by being elected. Under Article I, Congressmen (House and Senate) has the sole right to pass legislation, while under Article II, the Executive (President) has the right to implement Congressional legislation, and under Article III, the Supreme Court has the right to nullify congressional legislation and Presidential action. Duties, however, come into play when there is a need to protect the Constitution by each official’s doing their duties to check and balance to limit the undue accumulation of power. Senators’ duty to advise and consent (or reject) the President’s nominations is not optional. To claim a that any president has a mandate and hence Senators must approve anyone the President nominates is an outrageous betrayal of a Senator’s duty to reject the unqualified.
Americans Miserably Fail Any Civics Examination on Constitutional Law
Americans’ unadulterated ignorance is a great reason to fire everyone at the Department of Education. For example, virtually everyone believes that America is a democracy. It is not! This mistake is largely responsible for our sorry state of affairs with MAGA’s and Wokeism’s running amuck. When asked what form of government the Constitution Convention had formed, Benjamin Franklin replied “A republic if you can keep it.” Americans from the President down ignore the most basic fact that America is a Republic and not a democracy. The founding fathers expressly chose not to create a democracy, but instead they created a Federated Democratic Republic.
If Americans knew what the word syntax meant, one could point out that the noun in the phrase is Republic and democratic and federated are mere modifiers or more specifically adjectives. In the phrase, “pure-bred tricolor collie,” the noun is collie. One cannot merely say “tricolor.” Many things such as the US flag are tricolor. Likewise, “pure-bred” is an adjective which denotes that the collie is a purebred as opposed to a mixed breed. Thus, democratic is a mere adjective of Republic.
Yes, this English grammar lesson is kindergarten level. The word democratic means that some officials are elected as oppose being appointed by some higher authority such as a king or who inherit their positions. Elections of officials, however, does not mean only direct elections. Under the US Constitution, the only officials who are directly elected by the voters are Representatives in the House of Representatives. Originally, all others were indirectly elected.
Democracy vs Republic
The founding fathers were deeply steeped in Roman history. Rome had three phrases: monarchy, republic, and Empire. Because the Declaration of Independence broke the thirteen colonies from King George III, similar to how the Romans freed themselves from the Etruscan monarch, the founding fathers were especially well educated about the transition of Rome from a monarchy to a republic.
(1) Due to being ruled by a foreigner, the Romans had a deep hatred of power accumulating at the top of the government. They would have heralded Lord Acton when he wrote, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.” A republic with its division of power limits the accumulation of power. When the Roman Republic was threatened with destruction, it duly appointed retired general Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus ©. 519 - c. 430 BC) as absolute dictator for six months. Cincinnatus saved Rome within sixteen days and then quit as dictator to return to his three acre farm, despite the fact he could have stayed for six months. When George Washington refused to run for a third term, everyone knew he was following Cincinnatus’s example to voluntarily relinquish power.
(2) In both Rome and America, there are times when an individual’s honor requires him to place the welfare of the Republic above his/her personal benefit.
Ancient Rome’s most famous historian, Livy, relates the role that honor and duty played in the creation of the Roman republic. In 510B.C.E., Lucretia, the wife of a Roman general, was raped by Sextus Tarquinius, son of the Etruscan king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. Upon hearing of her rape, Lucretia’s father, husband, and his military associates rushed home to hear her tale. When the son of Sextus had threatened to rape her, she chose death. Next, Sextus threatened to rape and then kill her and one of her slaves, then claim that she had been fornicating with the slave. Faced with this scenario, which would bring great dishonor upon her and her husband, Lucretia allowed herself to be raped. At the end of relating these events, Lucretia declared that although she was innocent of any impurity, she did not want her rape to serve as an excuse for future illicit fornication and stabbed herself through the heart.
STOP! In order to understand the role of duty to protect, one needs to stop to analyze her story here – it highlights Roman’s high level of duty to protect one’s reputation (and her husband’s reputation) as highly as possible. Duty to protect one’s reputation transcended one’s life! Think – “Give me Liberty or Give me Death,” or today’s phrase Death before Dishonor. Today’s US Senators kill their honor to avoid the possibility of being primaried! Some will trash their honor and vote for the likes of Pig Hegseth just to avoid an angry tweet!
Because the founding fathers realized that the mob mentality could intimidate elected officials, they sought to reduce voting as much as possible. That is why they rejected a democracy where the Will of the People becomes the law of the law. (Think Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___, where neither Blacks nor women have inalienable rights but rather they only have the rights which the voters within a state may choose to grant or withhold from them. In a Republic, however, the Rule of Law is supreme and the voters’ enactments can be declared unconstitutional.) The only member of the US government who were directly elected were members of the House of Representative and then only for two years. Senators were chosen by state legislatures; The President was chosen by the electoral college, and Supreme court judges were nominated by the President and then approve (or rejected) by the Senate. In brief, the US Constitution seriously restricts the democratic aspect of the Republic.
The claim that a President gains a mandate to enact any policies is antithetical in a Republic; a President has no power to enact legislation or to rule laws unconstitutional. MAGA’s Unitary Executive Theory disagrees and posits that a President has a mandate to implement his policies even if they trample on Congressional action and alter the US Constitution. As we saw in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. ___ (2025), Trump’s being elected President gave him a mandate to pursue his policies without regard to prior law or the Constitution. Trump v Casa rules that Presidential POLICIES, and not congressional statutes or US constitution, are protected.
Justice Barrett wrote: “When a federal court enters a universal injunction (covers the entire county), it ‘improper[ly] intrudes’ on as ‘coordinated branch of the Government’ and prevents the Government from enforcing its POLICIES ...” Barrett Slip at p 24
Barrett knew that she elevated POLICIES above the Constitution and existing law. She knew that policies are neither statutes nor constitutions. Policies are whatever a President wants to do, and they may shift from day to day; sometimes from hour to hour.
What Becomes of a Nation Without Honor?
When those who have a duty to protect the rule of law rather chose to shed their honor, Constitutions become meaningless. Rather than heed Lucretia’s lesson, too many members of House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, throw their legs in the air calling out “Come and get it boys.”
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles-based attorney, 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])
