A Republic, Not a Democracy

by Ron Paul

Last week marked the conclusion of the grand taxpayer funded spectacles known as the national party conventions.  It is perhaps very telling that while $18 million in tax dollars was granted to each party for these lavish ordeals, an additional $50 million each was needed for security in anticipation of the inevitable protests at each event.  This amounts to a total of $136 million in taxpayer funds for strictly partisan activities – a drop in the bucket relative to our disastrous fiscal situation, but disgraceful nonetheless.  Parties should fund their own parties, not the taxpayer.

At these conventions, leaders determined, or pretended to determine, who they wished to govern the nation for the next four years amidst inevitable, endless exaltations of democracy.  Yet we are not a democracy.  In fact, the founding fathers found the concept of democracy very dangerous.

Democracy is majority rule at the expense of the minority.  Our system has certain democratic elements, but the founders never mentioned democracy in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.  In fact, our most important protections are decidedly undemocratic.  For example, the First Amendment protects free speech.  It doesn’t – or shouldn’t – matter if that speech is abhorrent to 51% or even 99% of the people.  Speech is not subject to majority approval.  Under our republican form of government, the individual, the smallest of minorities, is protected from the mob.

Sadly, the constitution and its protections are respected less and less as we have quietly allowed our constitutional republic to devolve into a militarist, corporatist social democracy.  Laws are broken, quietly changed and ignored when inconvenient to those in power, while others in positions to check and balance do nothing.  The protections the founders put in place are more and more just an illusion.

This is why increasing importance is placed on the beliefs and views of the president.  The very narrow limitations on government power are clearly laid out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. 


Setting your State Straight. On the EPA.

A Tenther’s Letter to West Virginia Legislators

Dear Legislator,

I can’t understand why the states–specifically your state–are allowing the EPA, which is an unconstitutional federal department, to make First Energy Corp., which operates coal plants in your state, cease operations with certain plants. Why is it that states and corporations (I’ve called First Energy to state my concern) roll over when the almighty fed, which was created by the people acting through their states, intimidates them?

Do you see any mention of the EPA, FDA, Education, Energy, etcetera departments in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution? Were any amendments added that included such departments? So why have the states cowered under the federal bully? Why have they allowed it to get to this point?

Well, a big part of the reason could be that those who occupy boardrooms and state governmental bodies are either progressives themselves, are totally clueless about our Constitution, or they are weak and cowardly. Since I don’t believe any of you fit those descriptions, I’m wondering why you haven’t acted to nullify the various actions perpetrated by the feds. Thomas Jefferson and others from the nation’s founding would say you should.


Romney Keeping Obamacare, Republicans and Food Stamps, and Obama controlling all communications? Tenther News 09-11-12

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie


As the world now knows, Mitt Romney is not for “getting rid of all” of the president’s signature healthcare reform. And, according to Jack Kenny of the New American Magazine, if he gets to preserve all the features of the Affordable Care Act that he likes, there may not be much replacing to do.

Kenney continues – Romney, who described himself in the Meet the Press interview as someone “as conservative as the Constitution,” has yet to explain where in the Constitution he finds the power delegated to Congress to prescribe the terms of insurance policies and to mandate whom insurance companies must cover. The clause (Article I, Section 8) that authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes” is a delegation of power to regularize the rules of trade, not to dictate the content of the goods or services that may be traded. The primary aim was to prevent states from levying their own imposts or tariffs on foreign imports or upon goods shipped from one state to another, as occurred under the Articles of Confederation. That concern was well described in the December 5, 1787 edition of the Massachusetts Centinel:

“For if one State makes a law to prohibit foreign goods of any kind, or to draw a revenue, from any imposition upon such goods, another State is sure to take the advantage, and to admit such goods free of costs. By this means it is well known how the trade of Massachusetts is gone to Connecticut, and that for want of a revenue, our own State taxes are increased.”