By DenisProduction.com @ Shutterstock.com
UPDATE: 4.20.23: As Joe Biden and Democrats call for more infringements on the Second Amendment, local officials are showing their commitment to protecting the Constitution from federal overreach. Jennifer Eberbach reports in the Livingston Daily that officials in Livingston County, Michigan, are not going to enforce unconstitutional restrictions on citizens’ right to bear arms. She writes:
A subcommittee of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners has forwarded a resolution reaffirming its stance on Second Amendment protections, encouraging the county sheriff and prosecutor not to enforce gun control laws they deem unconstitutional.
Livingston County has been a so-called Second Amendment “sanctuary” since the county board passed a 2020 resolution. The newly proposed resolution, which the full board is expected to adopt at a future meeting, declares Livingston a “constitutional county” that will not fund any new program that “restricts” rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution and Michigan State Constitution.
It’s the latest in a string of counties to react to newly passed and proposed gun control laws in Michigan. While such resolutions are symbolic and have no legal basis, they establish county officials’ mindsets when it comes to enforcing and funding gun control measures passed by a higher legislative body.
Livingston County Sheriff Mike Murphy took issue last week with a draft of the resolution, which seemed to interfere with his office, but said he disagrees with proposed “red flag” laws himself.
“I’m not going to enforce something that is not constitutional,” Murphy told The Daily on Monday. He told county officials something similar during an April 11 board meeting.
UPDATE 6.3.22: Any laws passed by the Democratic-run House and Senate barring law-abiding Americans from owning firearms can, and will be challenged in the Supreme Court. There, given a fair hearing, those laws will be invalidated as unconstitutional. Read the words of Walter E. Williams below regarding the design of the American republic. He wrote in 2007 “In recognition that it is government that poses the gravest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases in reference to Congress throughout the first ten amendments to the Constitution, such as shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied.” That language exists to protect Americans from the Joe Bidens of the world, who want to strip Americans of their rights.
Originally posted on January 23, 2019.
Writing in the now defunct magazine, The Freeman, in 2007, Walter E. Williams discussed the claim that America is a democracy. He wrote (abridged):
How often do we hear the claim that our nation is a democracy? Was a democratic form of government the vision of the Founders? As it turns out, the word democracy appears nowhere in the two most fundamental founding documents of our nation—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, declares “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Our pledge of allegiance to the flag says not to “the democracy for which it stands,” but to “the republic for which it stands.” Is the song that emerged during the War of 1861 “The Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”?
In recognition that it is government that poses the gravest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases in reference to Congress throughout the first ten amendments to the Constitution, such as shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. According to Webster’s dictionary, a democracy is defined as “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.” In a democracy the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike the rights envisioned under a republican form of government, rights in a democracy are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
There is considerable evidence that demonstrates the disdain held by our founders for a democracy. James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, “that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Later on, Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” In a word or two, the Founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.
The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with anti-majority-rule, undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for frequent criticism and calls for elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states could not use their majority to run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, or two-thirds of state legislatures, to propose an amendment and three-fourths of state legislatures to ratify it. Part of the reason for having a bicameral Congress is that it places another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of all 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president’s veto.
Do today’s Americans have contempt for the republican values laid out by our Founders, or is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? It appears that most Americans, as well as their political leaders, believe that Congress should do anything it can muster a majority vote to do. Thus we have been transformed into a democracy. The most dangerous and insidious effect of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy, decency, and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and could actually be opposites.
If we have become a democracy, I guarantee you that the Founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. They intended, and laid out the ground rules for, a limited republican form of government that saw the protections of personal liberties as its primary function.
Read more here from FEE, which inherited The Freeman.
