FOR WHICH IT STANDS

We on occasion pledge allegiance to the republic for which our flag stands.??

What is this republic of ours??

Our Republic?

Our republic is an independent constitution-created nation whose national (federal) government is a representative democracy limited by the rights of each citizen and is composed of separate executive, legislative and judicial branches. It also contains fifty sovereign states, each of which has its own history, tradition, cultural?mix and constitution, subject to the US Constitution. Because the federal government is a limited representative democracy, voters in each state elect representatives to represent them in Washington DC?to make federal laws.

This republic also is a union of those fifty states each of which elects delegates every four years to represent the state in electing the federal head of state who also is the federal chief executive and commander in chief, thus the American presidency.? Each state itself is not a representative democracy but rather is a pure democracy of the whole (also limited, however, by the rights of its citizens) whose voters by majority vote directly elect its state leaders and whose counties, cities, school boards, legislative districts and congressional districts also are themselves such limited pure democracies.?

In order to understand this republic of ours more completely, here are four fundamental aspects to know:?

1. Our constitutional republic requires knowing also that it was not designed out of whole cloth by government experts, policy wonks or political aficionados as it were.

2. The delegates representing the thirteen original sovereign nation-states (that had been colonies) who met in Philadelphia to? produce and to recommend the Constitution had made a key? decision: to create a constitutional republic intentionally?alternative to both a federal monarch and a federal democracy;?

3. While it is understandable the delegates would reject creating a monarchy, that they also would reject creating a democracy for?the federal government is a fundamental decision that explains the essence of the new republic. They believed that the only measure of the quality and success of a pure democracy is?mathematical . . . the majority vote. Therefore, they concluded that a national majority vote unfettered by any other standard,? such as constitutional constraints that protect liberty, the rights?of citizens and due process from unfettered majority-vote-induced laws or policies, can result in dictation by the pure majority. Since the expressed two-fold purpose of the? Constitution was and remains to secure the blessings of liberty?while creating a more perfect union of the states, they determined?that the use of the pure singular unfettered majority-vote?standard of success not only would be inconsistent with rights?protected by the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights, but?also would undermine the union of states and prohibit them from electing the president. Moreover, they saw the same problem with representative democracy, the key to a republic, if not also?constrained by the Constitution. Accordingly, they chose a?representative democracy for the federal government but as constrained by the Constitution to protect liberty, rights and due?process.?

As to the states, the founders recognized the rights of each state,? each electing its representatives to the US House and each?determining (now electing) its own Senators to the US Senate to make?federal law and policy. Because the states created the union of states,?

the founders provided further that the states elect their own delegates?to the Electoral College (and in default the US House) who in turn elect the republic’s president. Hence, representative democracy,?is constitutionally constrained for the union’s federal government.?

It also, then, would be the right of each state to use pure majority rule democracy to elect its own state and local leaders. But, it would?be the duty of the states, moreover, to use both the US Constitution, their own constitutions and their judicial branches to ensure that the?standard of success of their votes as pure democracies would not be?limited to the sole mathematical majority rule standard alone by?protecting life, liberty and due process.?

This thinking, as battled, debated and negotiated by the? Philadelphia delegates, was prescient because the pure democracies in each state and the constitutional constraints on them have been and?still are functioning (sometimes painfully…with our bloody civil war?and bloody civil disobedience…but always ultimately successfully as this republic grew).?

It is noteworthy that this thinking, while based on exhaustive?research on the entire history of human governance, did not factor in?the soon-to-be-reality role of political parties.?

Since 1789, this strain between democracy (the federal?representative democracy and the state and local pure democracies)? and the constitutions (as applied and interpreted by the judiciaries)? still abides even with the early advent of political parties and the?benefits and problems they produced as presaged by the founders.? Constitutional scholars have described this strain as a “tension”? between democracy and constitutions.?

4. The fourth aspect is the determinative interrelationship of the? following realities:?

• Most of the delegates to the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention were young (three in their 20s, 11 in?their 30s and 13 in their 40s, eight in their 50s with two in their 60s with Ben Franklin in his 80s).?
• All the delegates were courageous because, while they?thought they were sent to Philadelphia by their sovereign?states only to strengthen the Articles of Confederation by transferring more power from the states to that? Confederation’s weak central government, they soon?realized instead that they had not to strengthen but rather to eliminate the Articles of Confederation and then to fight,? debate, argue, and study the pros and cons of different?forms of governance throughout history, negotiate,? compromise as needed and then to produce the Constitution to recommend to the states to adopt.?
• Our Declaration of Independence (with its proclamation that?all are created equal with key unalienable rights) and our? Constitution (with its expressed purpose to create a more?perfect union and to secure the blessings of liberty) are the sources of the two quintessential American principles of?equal opportunity and liberty.?
• As to the purity of those two principles, and as to the?assurance neither dominates the other, the societal context?in which those delegates in Philadelphia worked not only was that the states were culturally and economically differentiated, but also was that the immoral impurity of slavery and slave owners existed and was not abolished notwithstanding serious anti-slavery delegates.?
• That is, to be sure, the Philadelphia delegates included many powerful gentlemen who fought to include?the abolishment of slavery in the new Constitution.?
• Nevertheless, inconsistent with the purity of American guiding principles of equal opportunity and individual liberty, the ultimate decision was to include the slave states in the new Constitution’s union of thirteen states so that not only were slavery and slave trade not abolished but: the word “slavery” was not used and euphemistically the word “person” was substituted in its place; banning slave trade was prevented as an aspect of interstate commerce until? 1808 (which banning, however, also was a last-gasp failed?opportunity contemplated by slavery opponents to have?another opportunity in 1808 for future leaders to abolish?slavery in the new Constitution); and, there was an apportionment compromise allowing slave states to count 3/5 of their slave population in order to inflate their population.?
• Notwithstanding, this societal context in which the? Philadelphia delegates fought each other over slavery before failing to abolish it in the new Constitution, does not mean that all the provisions in all the articles, sections and subsequent amendments in the new Constitution were flawed and it also does not mean the new Republic itself is flawed ab initio; it does mean that, while it took seventy?years to abolish slavery as a result of the Civil War and then?yet another one hundred years to eliminate legal segregation, these major victories over slavery and?segregation well may not have occurred but for the? Constitution itself.?

Thus our constitutional republic.?

A Problem?

There is a problem.?

The problem is that this constitutional republic of ours is being transformed.?

It is being transformed :?

• into a nationwide federal political-party-driven majority-vote democracy of the whole to elect the president serving as? chief executive of the federal government; without any role for or involvement by the states, undermining their union;? and?
• without the role of the Electoral College and, therefore,? without the transcendent gravitas-earned head-of-state duty of the president of this union.?

As to this problem, it appears that many if not the majority of? Americans either believe our country already is, or should become, a?federal democracy of the whole. Moreover, it appears at different times that this majority is composed not only of citizens and voters themselves but others such as media, consultants, politicians and academicians.?

They are against maintaining our republic and seek to replace it with a federal democracy.?

The Anti-Republic Thinking?

Their thinking is that no longer should a vote that is cast in a sparsely populated state “count more than” the vote of a fellow American citizen who in good faith votes in a highly populated state. This means they believe that the penultimate and natural American virtue is that each vote cast should be in a nationwide election that is, a direct vote (the so-called “popular vote”) for the president regardless of the state in which a voter lives (no longer, therefore, our fifty simultaneous state elections every four years in which each state's voters directly vote for that state's delegates to the Electoral College,? never directly for president).?

Their thinking further is that our founders fought our revolutionary war to be free to elect our own federal leader as a democracy.?

Their thinking also is that, because our nation is the world’s shining beacon of democracy, we no longer should indulge the hypocrisy of anti-democratic reliance upon delegates from each state to meet every four years to “decide” and then themselves to “elect” our president using our anachronistic “Electoral College” (that they believe was conceived centuries ago by the founders who they view as “flawed”,? “propertied”, “racist”, “slave-owning”, “anti-democratic” and “old white men”).?

They conclude, therefore, that our nation, itself, in turn, not only is stained deeply, but also is flawed inherently.

Pursuant to their thinking, our republic thusly is so tainted and so flawed irretrievably that it must be torn asunder, if not directly, then indirectly, if not constitutionally then unconstitutionally, if not honestly then dishonestly.?

More specifically, many believe that the reasons why the founders represented the thirteen states preserving their power to elect the federal president of their union, regardless of their stark population?disparities, no longer exist, because the states today, as practical?realities, in their view, are more administrative subdivisions rather?than sovereign independent jurisdictions. Accordingly, their view today is that ours is a unified nation so that the United States of America is a unified singularity (the United States is a nation), not a unified plurality (the United States are a union of states nation).?

Therefore, while they recognize that the US Senate plays no role in electing the president, the US Senate is a forum in which the states, with equal power, regardless of population, send their senators to represent and to debate their interests as they perform the duties of the Senate. They are fervent in their belief further that, because the?states are more administrative than sovereign, the US Senate now should be majoritarian or even eliminated and, that, at the least, states no longer should have and should never have had any role in electing?the president.?

However, as to their thinking there is a strange and an?increasingly countervailing phenomenon taking place that is both?inconsistent with and counterproductive to those who push so hard for a pure, unfettered, nationwide federal democracy of the whole in which each voter votes directly for the federal president without any?limiting constriction.?

This phenomenon is the role of our two major nationalized?political parties.?

Why??

Because they control and drive federal presidential elections?limited substantially to the standard bearer of each political party, no longer an unfettered, unlimited, unrestricted and free election as a?pure democracy.?

How Pro-Federal-Democracy Advocates Undermine Our Republic:? Strategy-Implementing Tactics.?

The anti-republic activists, and their democracy-as-a-whole?strategy, including our political parties, sometimes by default or and?sometimes unwittingly, are undermining our republic.?

How??

They are using the following four distinct observable tactics to? advance their anti-federal republic pro-federal democracy strategy,?

I. stealthily and disingenuously as to its fundamental nature; II. surreptitiously as to all of the consequences;?

III. collaboratively and connivingly with like-minded media; and,?

IV. preyingly on voters not only insufficiently educated civically but also no longer substantially, sufficiently and objectively educated in the bad, the good, the ugly, the beautiful, the ignoble and the noble of?the history of our beloved unique republic, the United States of America.?

These four tactics implementing their anti-republic strategy are not yet universally perceived much less grasped by the American?people.?

The American Head of State?

Moreover, their fervor to replace our constitutional republic with?a pure federal democracy…albeit limited by our two constrictive and restrictive political parties…will eliminate our republic's unique and?noble head of state that today, constitutionally, is merged brilliantly?and presciently with our elected federal government chief executive?into our unique American President as elected by the states to embody? American values for which the states fought.??

This elected American head of state who also is the government chief executive is unprecedented. It is unique. It is the key to the integrity of our union.?

Our head of state transcends the duties performed as the federal government chief executive because, with the gravitas of being elected by the states, the president not only negotiates, visits and hosts world?leaders and appoints and receives ambassadors but also embodies our?basic American values and is the symbol of our unity whose gravitas?also compels respect and appreciation when helping the nation get?through challenging times, helping celebrate happy events, instilling?comfort, and honoring Americans.?

While not every president, just as not every monarch, is an?exemplary head of state, the institution remains valuable.?

The problem is the presidents often but increasingly conduct?themselves more as adversarial political party “prime ministers” than heads of state. That conduct is unacceptable but yet is being accepted.?

That’s a key component of the efforts to transform our union into?a federal democracy eschewing a federal republic.?

The Thrust: Straightforwardness?

Nevertheless, the thrust here, in my view, is that:?

• if it is a timely, sincere and good idea to transform our constitutional republic into a limited political-party-driven,? quasi-parliamentary, democracy-of-the-whole, without the involvement of each state, then doing so must be disclosed?fully, discussed and debated forthrightly and then established?directly and expressly by straightforward amendment of the?several affected provisions of the Constitution using only constitutionally authorized amendatory procedures and?presented to informed voters;
• and if this no longer incipient but increasingly prevalent idea is?realized, then the tension between the US Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court and the newly existing?democracy of the whole will become critical to preventing the?unfettered will of the majority.?

It is time, I believe, to recognize this pervasive reach of this existential failure to be straightforward with the American people.?

By way of a simple example, no president of our union of states? since Abraham Lincoln, as our head of state, has fulfilled the constitutional duty to report annually and expressly to the Congress? on “the state of the union” of this republic, given both the expressed? two-fold purpose of our Constitution “to create a more perfect union”? and to ensure the blessings of liberty and keeping in mind the observation of Ben Franklin that the founders had created a? constitutional republic “if” we “can keep it.”?

We’re not keeping it.?

Our presidents are not reporting this problem in their required annual State of the Union reports to Congress.?

Why??

Because they have been focused on how the political party that a?president leads is dealing with the issues du jour.?

Because, more fundamentally, the concept of reporting on the state of the union is not understood.?

Further, four earlier-referenced tactics (used to implement their anti-republic strategy) are neither exposed nor disclosed to the American people and are not discussed fairly and openly and to which the people are not prepared to react.

On The Four Implementing Tactics:?

Thoughts and Observations with Related Recommendations.?

This anti-republic onslaught no longer may be prevented, as it may be too late due to its long-ignored stealth, dishonesty and subterfuge.?

It in all probability well may be too late to reverse or prevent.?

In any event, here are thoughts and observations about why and?how each of those above-referenced four tactics is succeeding to implement the clandestine anti-republic strategy, each with a set of recommendations.?

In my view, each of these recommendations has the potential,? however, to disclose what’s happening and, at the least, to steer the anti-republic onslaught into straightforward disclosure and direct use of the constitutional amendatory process.?

I. Stealthily and disingenuously failing to disclose to the American people?the fundamental nature of that transformation.?

A. Thoughts and Observations.?

The essential inherent quality and character…that is, the nature…of? the transformation from a federal republic to a federal democracy is? three-fold:?

• a rejection of the uniqueness of our history;?
• a substantial degree of ignorance of the unprecedented,? fundamental and transcendent head-of-state component, role? and duty of the American presidency; and?
• a retrogressive regressive throwback embrace of old-fashioned party-driven parliamentary democracies which, though honorable, venerable and appropriate for so many nations, are not adaptable to the progressive opportunities afforded to our union of states under our well-debated, well-negotiated, forward-looking Constitution.?

The nature of this ongoing transformation of our republic into a democracy must be assessed with the perspective that ours is a young nation, while our Constitution is the longest surviving written? Constitution, already over two centuries old. So, indeed, there may be?provisions in our Constitution that were written for reasons that well may be viewed today as no longer existing or valid. However,? eliminating or amending them should comply with constitutionally?authorized procedures by which all prior amendments were accomplished. Amending our Constitution is difficult because such an organic document should not be amended often and freely or else it?ceases to be organic and, if no longer organic, the republic begins its death throws. That our US Constitution only had 27?amendments (out of thousands of attempts) since its adoption in 1789? means it is forward looking as brilliantly drafted to serve the American?people organically for centuries to come.?

Furthermore, therefore, the nature of this stealth, disingenuous?and indirect de facto constitution-transformation movement is?composed in substantial part of the interests of our two major political parties and how they, themselves, have transformed their essence and,? have lost their power so that, as a consequence, each of those two?parties constitutes increasingly a shrill and mere residual entity. Additionally, in the United States Congress each of our two major?political parties itself has deteriorated further by battling factions within each about how to accomplish the wishes of the parties which is not constructive and which is exemplary of the old fashioned?parliamentary democracy that is advocated by those who want a federal democracy.?

To many if not most Americans, there well may be in their minds and hearts good timely reasons to transform our constitutional republic into a federal democracy, even with the inherent?inconsistency with pure democracy of a party-driven democracy; but,? to do so by being stealthy and disingenuous in their advocacy is a?fundamental degrading problem and that kills the nature of the most?progressive forward looking nation-state in the history of the world.?

We, therefore, have here an existential challenge to and disintegration of our unprecedented federal republic.

Traditional party-driven federal parliamentary democracy is regressively inapt for such a progressive constitutional republic.?

It appears to be malignant as it is approaching a fait accompli, especially with either the active leadership of or default by our two political parties (which themselves have given up their ability and power to compromise within their own membership in favor of the will of primary voters).?

There remains some hope, however slim, that the excesses and abuses of this retrogressive insurgent movement to transform our republic into a counterproductive federal democracy still can be resisted successfully by the simple alternative recommendation to use direct fully disclosed constitutional amendatory processes.?

In any event, what is so well suited to the future are:?

• to retain our constitutional republic because it itself is enlightened and forward-looking, wary of both the tyranny of a monarch and the dangers of pure-democracy, party driven majorities. [The founders studied in detail all forms of government throughout history, including the causes of the demise of each of history’s republics (including their relative impact on American liberty, equal opportunity and forming a more perfect union.)]; and?
• to perpetuate a federal head of state of the federal union elected by the states which generates confidence regardless of party affiliation. This confidence is derived from the comfortable understanding that the president shall have campaigned in each state, understands the needs and interests of each state and thereby credibly embodies America’s interests, needs and values superior to political party vicissitudes, machinations, calculations, calibrations, and related dark money funding. To reiterate, in our republic the elected president not only is chief executive of the federal government but also is head of state embodying?American non-partisan values.

If in essence the two major parties have a guiding star focus (the Democratic Party has a fundamental guiding star focus on equality and the Republican Party has a fundamental guiding star focus on liberty), then, during their nominating conventions, their delegates should be unfettered by the primaries in order to debate and to fight?each other about how to calibrate their guiding star to address those various liberal and conservative political goals within each party for the next four years in both the selection of nominees and the adoption of platforms.?

These points are key:?

• Primary voters are composed substantially of those whose views are not mainstream within each party so that the additional consequence is that each of our two major political parties now is reduced to being a mere shrill political-pressure shell no longer in the mainstream of what once each was. This reality further has resulted in the nationalization of our two political parties no longer with any relevance or attention to the important highly varied plethora of interests of each state in our union.?
• There remain and always have been natural human-nature derived liberal and conservative perspectives within each party that are being wiped out by their respective primary voters, wresting basic power from and preventing fulfillment of duty by the party members in their conventions to nominate candidates and to work out their platforms, calibrating their great guiding star principles (equality and liberty) to the next four years. This convention-based calibration is dead.?
• Turning power over to the primary voters results in no compromise within each party which in turn produces no compromise in the US Congress, no compromise in the relationship between either house in the Congress and the President, and no compromise in confirming judicial appointments.
• When and as the venerable Democratic Party has been “primaried” into the American Liberal party and the venerable Republican Party has been “primaried” into the American Conservative party, our constitutional republic is morphing into de facto traditional old fashioned quasi parliamentary governing even though the transformation de jure into a federal party-driven democracy has not yet occurred.?

It is obvious also that the Democratic Party wants to proceed with the incipient interstate compact project (while Republicans appear ambiguous on this serious challenge to our republic). This project is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (the “NPVIC”)0F1 which would bind a signatory state to instruct its Electoral College delegates to vote for the party-nominee winner of the so called unofficial “popular vote.”?

Thus is disclosed the existential nature of this transformation and therein are the reasons why its advocates are stealthy and disingenuous.?

B. Recommendations.?

It is worthwhile to consider, to discuss, to adopt, to advocate and to institute the following recommendations:?

1) Determine that all states have adopted, or, if not should adopt, implement and enforce provisions in their state constitutions to put all candidates for state-wide office?

1. The NPVIC IS AN AGREEMENT by which each of the fifty states (and the District of Columbia which is not a state) agrees to award its electoral votes to the presidential and vice presidential nominee ticket that in fact shall have garnered enough nation wide votes to constitute the so called “popular” vote. As of August of 2023, sixteen states have signed that Compact. Those sixteen have 205 electoral votes constituting 38% of the electoral vote which is already 76% of the required 270 electoral votes needed to be elected by the Electoral College (including those who are, but not limited to, Democratic and Republican candidates) into one pool from which each voter votes for one and sending the resulting top two votes cast into a general election, regardless of party or of no party affiliation. An example is Florida’s Amendment 3, known as the Open Top Two System, which, even though opposed rigorously by Florida’s Democratic and Republican parties, still garnered 57% of the votes but failed to garner the 60% required to amend the state constitution.?
2. Determine that all states have adopted or, if not, should adopt provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting use of state funds to aid corporations and further research how such provisions apply to political parties which are private corporations capable of nominating candidates without taxpayer funding. The following provision of the Florida Constitution is the basis for the filing of a declaratory?judgment action, seeking a determination of whether it applies to political party entities and should be implemented and enforced.?

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION:?

Article VII. FINANCE AND TAXATION?

SECTION 10. Pledging credit.—Neither the state nor any county, school district, municipality, special district, or agency of any of them, shall become a joint owner with, or stockholder of, or give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person; but this shall not prohibit laws authorizing:?

(a) the investment of public trust funds;?

(b) the investment of other public funds in obligations of, or insured by, the United States or any of its instrumentalities;?

(c) the issuance and sale by any county, municipality, special district or other local governmental body of (1) revenue bonds to finance or refinance the cost of capital projects for airports or port facilities, or (2) revenue bonds to finance or refinance the cost of capital projects for industrial or manufacturing plants to the extent that the interest thereon is exempt from income taxes under the then existing laws of the United States, when, in either case, the revenue bonds are payable solely from revenue derived from the sale, operation or leasing of the projects. If any project so financed, or any part thereof, is occupied or operated by any private corporation, association, partnership or person pursuant to contract or lease with the issuing body, the property interest created by such contract or lease shall be subject to taxation to the same extent as other privately owned property.?

(d) a municipality, county, special district, or agency of any of them, being a joint owner of, giving, or lending or using its taxing power or credit for the joint ownership, construction and operation of electrical energy generating or transmission facilities with any corporation, association, partnership or person.?

History.—Am. H.J.R. 1424, 1973; adopted 1974.?

(Emphasis supplied).?

3) Bring legal action (such as a declaratory judgment) in federal court to declare the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (“NPVIC”) unconstitutional because it results in a federal democracy . . . a national democracy-of-the-whole one- person-one-vote (so called “popular vote”) presidential election, which in turn terminates our republic without constitutional amendment and replaces it with a pure federal democracy and further because it is party driven?undermining representative democracy which is the essence of the republic and further because it transforms the US President into a quasi-parliamentary prime minister eliminating the president as the American union head of state.

To be sure, in light of US Supreme Court holdings over time, the law of the land is that each state has substantial power to choose and to send its own electors to the Electoral College. Accordingly, it well may be affirmatively constitutional when each state chooses to send its electors instructed, obligated and bound legally to vote for the winner of the so called national “popular vote,” however, I believe this?power in the states is not absolute if it runs afoul of other constitutional provisions. There is a non-frivolous constitutionally grounded view that no state, in exercising its right to choose its electors, can do so when it instructs its electors to elect the “winner” of the national “popular vote” if doing so violates other constitutional provisions. Doing so undermines the republic which is and can only be a federal representative democracy. To use a presidential election controlled by the power of each state to empower by interstate compact a political party to transform our federal representative-democracy republic into a federal democracy of the whole undermines the expressed purpose of the Constitution to create and maintain a more perfect union of states, eliminates the president as head of state, transforms the president into a quasi-prime minister representing her or his party, fails to address other relevant provisions not designed for a federal democracy, and transforms our republic into a quasi parliamentary democracy without a head of state, all fundamental to our nation, indirectly, and without disclosure, thereby unconstitutional until and unless amended constitutionally. An interstate compact has no power or authority to amend the United State Constitution and neither does a political party. It is clear that this limitation I have set forth is consistent with the holdings of the US Supreme Court.?

4) Set up a national ad hoc Commission to disclose all aspects, pro and con, of transforming our federal republic into a federal democracy.?

5) Set up an additional ad hoc Commission in each state to assess objective non-partisan options to ensure public schools educate students about: American history; American civics; and how, to consume media accurately and completely to prepare informed voters.

Here are several caveats to be applied with these five recommendations:?

Caveat: it well may be too late to stop the pro-federal democracy anti-constitutional republic transformation.?

Caveat: these recommendations, however, are designed at least to disclose the transformation as stealthy, disingenuous and surreptitious and to induce a healthy national discussion about whether to save our constitutional federal republic, restore its integrity, and even to restore the integrity of our political parties, thus saving them from their “primaried” selves.?

Caveat: even though the constitution convention delegates opposed them, factions and political parties are a natural and understandable phenomenon of the human condition, especially among citizens in a nation state, and they can be and from time to time have been not only constructive components of society but in fact on occasion have been prime movers of historic major forward-looking laws and policies which they did by compromise.?

Caveat: our extra-constitutional political parties themselves are accepted as constitutional, or at least as not unconstitutional, even though they are private corporate organizations.?

Caveat: while it well may be that this illicit and well-on-the way transformation of our republic no longer is reversible, there fortunately still remains sufficient time to have a national discussion about these recommendations to focus on the abuses by our two major political parties of themselves and thereby of our constitutional republic and, if these recommendations are adopted and implemented, then, at the least, they will have a chilling effect on the disingenuous, surreptitious, stealthy, deceptive, and dishonest attempt to transform our republic into a party driven federal democracy of the whole.

Caveat: if this anti-republic transformation is well on the way, our nation and its citizens still will be better off if this transformation at least is disclosed completely, discussed fully, understood clearly, and then adopted by direct amendment to the Constitution. It, however, would mean that American citizens no longer want to have and live in a constitutional republic. That’s not forward-looking and would be a rejection of the future the republic offers perpetuating equal opportunity and individual liberty; but, at least it will have been effected knowingly.?

Caveat: moreover there also might be a practical honest compromise which incipiently well may be in the making.?

II. Surreptitiously failing to report to the American people the consequences of being transformed into a federal democracy.?

A. Thoughts and Observations.?

The consequences of transforming our constitutional republic into a democracy are numerous, dangerous and increasingly subject to non-frivolous determinations of being unconstitutional.?

While many of the opponents of our republic are unaware and uninformed about the consequences, many others are knowingly secretive because they want to avoid focusing the attention of the American people on the consequences of the transformation from a constitutional republic to a federal party-driven democracy of the whole.?

Here are some of those consequences that seek to do indirectly what ought to be done if at all directly by straightforwardly amending the Constitution.?

1. Deception: the deceptive propaganda today that a national pure democracy is the summum boman, our American destiny, so that, while the Philadelphia delegates were correct to prevent monarchy, they were incorrect to prevent also the federal democracy, viewing the constitutional republic based on representative democracy and a union of states is the summum malum.?

2. Fusion: the deceptive fusion of the party’s interests with the interests of the constituencies of each party’s elected senators and representatives undermines representative democracy in the Congress promulgated by the US House and the US Senate by party rule which increases in force and effect if and when our constitutional republic is transformed into a federal party-driven democracy as whole. That transformation is itself an unconstitutional consequence violating representative democracy.?

3. Erosion: erosion of federalism as a result of the battles of our two shallow nationalized and degenerated political parties empowering the federal government over the states, relegating the union of states to a network of fifty party-controlled sovereign-less bureaucratic administrative prefectures, which is unconstitutional.?

4. Elimination: eliminating the unique duty of the American republic’s president to serve as our head of the union of states with the result that the president would remain primarily a political party leader, a quasi-parliamentary prime minister, no longer guided and categorically motivated by the American values heretofore embodied in the state-elected presidential head of state, undermining confidence in our federal president to put national interest over party interest.?

5. Loss of American Values: Party-driven parliamentary democracies are noble, venerable, and successful in which the prime minister has no head of state status or duties so that the head of state either is a constitutional monarch or an elected president-head-of-state. But, if our federal government is transformed into a party-driven democracy of the whole, then there is no office that embodies American values, a function political parties and their representatives cannot perform. If in time our Constitution were to be?amended to provide for an independently elected president to serve as our head of state, she or he would and could perform ceremonial duties but no longer have that empowering gravitas to embody our republic’s values which attends and results from the confidence derived from election by sovereign states.?

6. Degeneration: the US House of Representatives then would degenerate completely and officially into a party-driven-and controlled quasi-parliament in which party interests increasingly are paramount and formally entrenched over the interests of the voters and citizens in each Congressional district, thereby obstructing constitutional representative democracy even in the misleading guise of a transformed federal full democracy of the whole.?

7. Metamorphosis: while the United States Senate still would be composed of two Senators from each state, with dictatorship by the fundamentally more entrenched power in the majority political party, the interests of each state?would be an officially secondary consideration, even more so than by Senate rules today, thereby obstructing constitutional representative democracy even in the misleading non-forthcoming guise of a transformed federal full-party controlled democracy of the whole.?

8. Unwarranted Control of the States: even the governors and legislators of each state would be positioned more beholden to the interests and demands of our then more nationalized unitary leftist or rightest political parties, thereby?undermining even the heretofore pure democracies of the whole in each state or in each legislative district within each state.?

9. Inconsistency: if our republic were to be transformed disingenuously and surreptitiously into a federal democracy of the whole, that is, without straightforward informed amendatory processes, then residual conflicting or?inconsistent sections of our Constitution shall not also have been amended to implement such a federal democracy.?

B. Recommendations.?

1. Apply the five recommendations and their caveats in IB here as well.?

2. Amend the constitutionally-authorized US House and US Senate rules to provide the following simple and direct additional provision: “Every member is bound to put the interests of her or his constituents as each member perceives them, at all times, above and superior to any interests and dictates of either the majority or minority political party.”?

III. Collaborately, often even connivingly, working with or exploiting like-minded media (“conservative” or “liberal”) to refrain from disclosing all the truth of the consequences of transforming our republic into a federal democracy.?

Thoughts and Observations?

It has been obvious that there is de facto collaboration between a variety of media (traditional and social) and our two major political parties. There even are reported examples of expressed collaboration between federal agencies and both types of media. Similar historic interactions of such collaboration are recorded dating back to the US election of 1800.?

Constitutional freedom of the press and of speech are sacrosanct. But abuse by political parties of themselves and in turn of the Constitution can be ameliorated by an informed citizenry.?

A. Recommendation.?

Apply the five recommendations in IB and their caveats here as well.

IV. Preyingly taking advantage of voters who not only are insufficiently civically educated but who also are no longer substantially, sufficiently and objectively educated in the bad, the good, the ugly, the beautiful, the ignoble and the noble of the history of our beloved United States of America.?

A. Thoughts and Observations.?

It increasingly is obvious that, for a variety of reasons, public “K through twelve” schools are not preparing students to become informed citizens, consumers of media reports and voters and our two major political parties are impacting this phenomenon negatively.?

B. Recommendation.?

Apply the five recommendations in IB and their caveats here as well.?

Conclusion?

The republic for which our flag stands is under assault. If the assault succeeds our republic ceases to exist and then is replaced by a federal democracy of the whole. Such a successful assault is transformational. Sadly and grievously this transformation shall have been de facto by stealth disingenuously, surreptitiously, connivingly and preyingly.?

Initially, Americans will notice changes in presidential elections but will not understand that instead the changes are transformations.?

There also will be the daunting challenge to the US Supreme Court to be vigilant in protecting rights and due process with the brand new democracy of the whole, contextually reapplying the tension between this new federal party-driven democracy and our Constitution.

In time Americans would come to realize that the American republic is dead, understanding finally what that death means and the most forward looking constitution in world history and the union it set up to keep equal opportunity and individual liberty alive would become extinct.?

The republic for which our flag stands is young. It is unprecedented It is constitutional and its constitution is unique. It is the oldest continuous but most forward looking. It is the best suited form of governance to perpetuate equal opportunity and individual liberty.?

Both the nature of this anti-republic malignancy and its consequences, if it were to be successful, must be exposed.?

Therefore, hopefully, the thoughts and observations discussed in this writing will be considered and their recommendations herein will be implemented.?

There is time to do so but, absent the advent of a statesman to lead, time may run out.?

There still is time to defeat this anti-republic onslaught but it will take time to implement a few basic reforms.?

Hence, it is time for a call to action: implement the recommendations.

About the Author:?

Henry Kenza van Assenderp is a Tallahassee attorney and counselor at law since 1974 who earned his BA from the Florida State University and his JD from the Cumberland School of Law of Samford University He has helped a variety of clients, institutional and individual, throughout Florida, accomplish their goals and, for many of them, also thereby working further to establish related innovative new policies or contractual relationships in matters ranging from new community land use, growth management, property tax, special assessment, independent infrastructure special district, high-speed rail, constitutional law and policy (including the ultimate clarification that the county officers are constitutional officers, not the county’s officers). He has conceived and written innovative landmark laws and has won several important state appellate cases. Gov. Jeb Bush appointed him to an elections standards, technology and procedures task force after the 2000 presidential election and Gov. Reuben Askew appointed him to the new communities task force. He is registered with no party affiliation.