Thread: Democracy or Republic - The difference between them

Democracy or Republic - The difference between them



http://www.devvy.com/pdf/larosa/larosa_ ... public.pdf

That's an interesting commentary, but it errs in failing to comprehend the two quite separate entities that exist simultaneously under the name United States. The republic is the union of the several states, properly called the Republic of the United States of America. This is generally colloquially shortened to "the United States" or "these United States". The Constitution and its Bill of Rights defines the relationship between the federal government and the republic, its constituent states, and their citizens (the People).

The other "United States" is the federal corporate entity. As originally constituted, the federal corporate intity was meant to be strictly territorially limited, specifically to a maximum of ten miles square. The District of Columbia is the original territorial region of the federal entity. It is not governed under the rules that apply to the interactions between the federal entity and the republic, but is rather administered pursuant Article 1, Sec. 8 as a federal legislative democracy. This power to exercise exclusive legislation is also extended to all properties, possessions and territories of the federal entity. Originally, this applied to forts, armories, dockyards and other federal properties in the several states, to territories purchased by the United States but not admitted as states, and to possessions purchased or won from other nations, such as islands like Puerto Rico and Guam.

Amendment XIV created a new possibility for the federal entity, as it created a second class of citizenry. Note the verbiage of its Sec. 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Note that the "United States" addressed here is contradictinct from the several states. This clause refers to the federal entity, and for the first time created citizens of that corporate entity. In addition to applying to freed slaves and naturalized citizens, the section left open the possibility of other Americans becoming United States citizens.

As federalism gobbled up the concept of state sovereignty and states' rights in the decades following the Civil War, the number of joint state/US citizens increased exponentially, fuelled largely by the waves of immigration that swelled to population of the continent. The federal entity had an increasing number of its citizens with their protections and immunities living out in the several states. For this reason, it extended an overlay of ten federal districts over the several states. For those under its direct legislative authority, the federal government was now able to promulgate regulations that had direct effect upon those federal citizens. Once Roosevelt created the Social Security system, every voluntary participant in that program became a franchise of the federal entity, and so subject to its direct legislative authority as well as its power to regulate commercial entities.

Do you see where this is going? There are two separate "nations" existing in the same geographical area. One is the republic. The other is the federal legislative democracy. Which one you are part of depends upon which type of citizen you are and whether you are a federal franchise.

This document refers to what the Founders Fathers had in mind and what WAS the ideal of the Constitution.
The XIV amendment was not in the original document.
But thanks for the information although it was changed for the profit of some.

Originally Posted by minnie

This document refers to what the Founders Fathers had in mind and what WAS the ideal of the Constitution.
The XIV amendment was not in the original document.
But thanks for the information although it was changed for the profit of some.

I understand. what I am trying to explain (perhaps poorly) is that there is a very specific reason that our federal officials use the term "democracy." Basically, a number of the federalist policies following the Civil War have combined into an effective coup that destroyed the original system of government, not by eliminating it, but rather by duping most Americans into unwittingly joining into an entirely different system (the federal legislative democracy) which was never meant to be applied to anything beyond the ten miles square of D.C.

What is unclear is whether federal officials and other politicians and commentators use the term "democracy" because they know that the entire nation is being administered as if it were the District if Columbia or because they have had the term pounded into their heads by the elites who have masterminded this coup.

I think most of them don't know . I have been asking for this explanation and nobody could give me.
This is the problem, everybody know what is going on TV, Sports, but these important things I couldn't get explanation . This is "politics" and they don't like, they like to say what party they favor but if you ask what is going on inside the goverment nobody knows.
Even in the war, they are against but they don't know what is going on if is not on the front page.
I would like to know , have you heard about the changing on the name of the Constitution, from "Constitution TO the United States of America" to
Constitution OF the United States of America ?

Originally Posted by minnie

I think most of them don't know . I have been asking for this explanation and nobody could give me.
This is the problem, everybody know what is going on TV, Sports, but these important things I couldn't get explanation . This is "politics" and they don't like, they like to say what party they favor but if you ask what is going on inside the goverment nobody knows.
Even in the war, they are against but they don't know what is going on if is not on the front page.
I would like to know , have you heard about the changing on the name of the Constitution, from "Constitution TO the United States of America" to
Constitution OF the United States of America ?

Actually, the federal Constitution did not have either title as such, but it did include in the Preamble the term, "Constitution for the United States of America."

I have heard it opined that the reason that is is now called the Constitution of the United States rather than the Constitution for the United States is that the former is a new document that has supplanted the latter. The problem is that regardless of what it is called, the text is exactly the same.

I believe that the greater issue is that subjects of the federal legislative democracy have been ruled by the Supreme Court to NOT retain the protections of natural rights which are the subject of the Bill of Rights. In other words, the laws and regulations passed by the federal entity for its own federal zone are not subject to the limitations of the Bill of Rights. Only those federal code sections specifically identified as being "positive law" are applicable to the full republic and the sovereigns thereof. Those which are not positive law apply only to so-called "US citizens." The federal government extends a separate set of protections to to its subjects under the system of Roman Civil Law, which is why they are called "civil rights" or "civil liberties." In much the same way that the terms "republic" and "democracy" have been intentionally confused, so must you now look to texts at least a century old to find discussion of the very important differences between civil rights, which are created by and are therefore revocable by the federal government, and natural rights, which are conferred by the Creator and are irrevocable by anyone but the holder of the rights, who is at liberty to waive them.

Crocket ,
according to the Bill of Rights, the citizens of the Republic are not allowed to chalenge in court all the changes they manipulate in detriment of the people? Isn't there any law ?

Originally Posted by minnie

Crocket ,
according to the Bill of Rights, the citizens of the Republic are not allowed to chalenge in court all the changes they manipulate in detriment of the people? Isn't there any law ?

Well, they are technically within the letter of the law. The problem is that the citizens became so dependent upon the government after they were stupid enough to hand over the monetary system to a private cartel controlled by foreign interests that they voluntarily waived their rights, or at least most of them did. You may recall that old saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Also, a signatory to a contract or agreement is solely responsible for reading and understanding the full contents of that contract or agreement. That people don't realize what they are actually doing to their citizenship status and rights when they become federal dependents through the Social Security agreement or other agreements is no one's fault but their own, at least from a legal persepctive. Now, if any individual can show that he was defrauded into signing an unconscionable contract, he may obtain relief, but that's a pretty big "if".

And unfortunatelly the schools are helping to keep the children, unaware, ignorants, and now with a total lack of Patriotsm.
I know a lot of people are trying to wake up people but they think they still have all the benefits granted by the Constitution.
I'm naturalized , but I try to learn, it's amazing how others can be here and don't get interessed for what is going on.