Why Secure Liberty?
One of the goals of the U.S. Constitution is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” AntiCA uses the phrase “secure liberty” as:
• A noun: Liberty that is secure and lasting, because there is sufficient protection against the forces that would deprive people of that liberty.
• An imperative: Securing liberty requires an active effort against such forces. It requires hard work, diligence, risk, and sacrifice.
How is liberty best achieved and preserved? Liberty is freedom. So, at first thought, it might seem that the best way to achieve maximum liberty is for everyone to have complete freedom from any governmental authority. That is the concept of anarchy.
That might work in some hypothetical universe where everyone treats everyone else with respect and nobody attempts theft, violence, oppression, extortion, and conquest. Unfortunately, the history of the world shows it is in human nature for some to commit these and other crimes if they can get away with it.
Complete freedom from any governmental authority (anarchy) does not provide secure and stable freedom. It inevitably devolves into chaos, insecurity, conquest, or imposition of oppressive governments. History has shown that lack of government leads to insecurity and oppression on a local level (e.g., crime), regional (e.g., warlords), or national conquest or imposition of oppressive governments). Anarchy’s promise of liberty is temporary and illusory. The reality is that liberty is not secure and lasting without some level of government protection.
The key is to strike an appropriate balance between preserving individual liberty, local governance, and a national government that is sufficiently strong to protect the liberty of the country as a whole while being restrained enough to respect and secure the liberty and rights of individuals and local/state governments.
Achieving this balance, and thus preserving our liberties and rights, requires:
* Government that is restrained in its use of power and is fiscally responsible
* Policing that is sufficiently strong, but respects individuals’ rights
* An effective and fair judicial system governed by the Rule of Law
* Military that is sufficiently strong, but restrained in its involvement around the world to what reasonably serves the interests of the U.S. and its citizens
* Secure borders, combined with a fair immigration system
* Citizen participation and oversight
Many of AntiCA’s products (such as clothing, stickers, and educational materials) are designed to educate about the need to secure liberty and honor those dedicated to that effort, both now and in the past. AntiCA is committed to donating 10% of its profits to organizations that work to establish and preserve liberty and justice for all, including law enforcement, active and veteran military, border security, and citizen participation and oversight.
A Reasonable Balance of Central, State, and Local Government Power and Individual Rights
The United States learned early on that secure liberty requires a thoughtful balance between liberty (on the individual and state level) and government authority. Following the American Revolution, the citizens of the newly founded U.S. were very wary of centralized government power that could impose unwanted restrictions and burdens on the liberty of the states and citizens. The original thirteen states wanted to give up very little of their liberty to a central government. Therefore, the first national government for the U.S. -- established by the Articles of Confederation, which went into effect in 1781 – was only a very weak centralized national government (consisting only of Congress, without any executive and judicial branches) that had little to no authority or ability to require the states and citizens to comply with the decisions of Congress. Having a weak central government served the states’ desires to maximize their liberty. However, it was not long before the lack of centralized power led to a number of problems that threatened to undo the union and render the states vulnerable to a complete loss of liberty to European powers or domestic conflict. As explained by the U.S. National Archives:
"Just a few years after the Revolutionary War, however, George Washington and James Madison were among those who feared their young country was on the brink of collapse. With the states retaining considerable power, the central government had insufficient power to regulate commerce. It could not tax and was generally impotent in setting commercial policy. Nor could it effectively support a war effort. Congress was attempting to function with a depleted treasury; and paper money was flooding the country, creating extraordinary inflation.
"The states were on the brink of economic disaster; and the central government had little power to settle quarrels between states. Disputes over territory, war pensions, taxation, and trade threatened to tear the country apart.
"In May 1787, the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation."
Through a lengthy process of brainstorming and debate, the Constitutional Convention realized that to accomplish a lasting resolution of these issues and preserve liberty for the entire country, individuals and the states must cede sufficient authority to the central, national government. On the other hand, they did not want to give the central government so much power that it could be tyrannical and deprive them of their most important liberties. After all, the point of ceding power to the national government was to preserve those liberties, not to lose them. The Preamble to U.S. Constitution explained the purposes of the new Constitution, which included to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed to strike an appropriate balance of centralized government authority and liberties retained by the states and individuals.
That balance is not always perfect. Different people have different opinions about how much power the central government should have. And there are always people who want to acquire and misuse power to enrich and aggrandize themselves. We must always be vigilant against that. Throughout U.S. history, those in power in Washington, D.C. have tended to increase the power and size of the national, federal government in order to increase their own power and wealth at the expense of the states and individual citizens. This has been made possible by U.S. citizens voting for such people and the U.S. Supreme Court allowing this shift of power to the central government.
If this trend of increasing centralization of power and loss of individual liberty is to be stopped, and reversed, it is necessary for more people to become actively involved in that effort. The first step is awareness. It is important that people understand the actual and potential structures, uses, and abuses of the various systems of government in the United States (federal, state, and local) and their relation to each other and to our individual rights.
With that understanding, we can determine what needs to be changed and how to work on accomplishing that for the benefit of us all. The need for this process is not new. In fact, it is older than the U.S. itself. For example, more than ten years before the American Revolution, John Adams was one of many who called on the American people to engage in a similar process of political education and awareness:
"The prospect, now before us, in America, ought . . . to engage the attention of every [person] of learning to matters of power and of right, that we may be neither led nor driven blindfolded to irretrievable destruction." -- John Adams, “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law” (Oct. 21, 1765)
And the struggle to define and limit the size and power of government has continued throughout our country’s history. There were great increases in the power and scope of the federal government via President FDR’s New Deal and in the 1960’s and 70’s. When he became President in 1981, Ronald Reagan sought to reverse that trend, as stated in his first inaugural speech. See video of the speech below. Click here for the full text of the speech. Click here for the full inauguration video, speech starts at 21:10)
As President Reagan noted in his 1981 inaugural speech:
“We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.”
Early in his 1981 inaugural speech, President Reagan referred to government being the problem, not the solution, to the crisis the U.S. faced at the time. By that, he meant too much government was the problem. Later in the speech, he made clear that what is needed is a proper balance between government and private actors, with government playing a helpful, supportive role, rather than dominating or stifling private actions:
“Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government.”
President Reagan’s guiding insight -- that limited government working cooperatively with private actors (rather than controlling or stifling them) is responsible for unleashing the energy and individual genius of people to a greater extent than has ever been done before—has been confirmed by economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson who won the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics. They examine this phenomena in detail in their book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (2012). The book examines a wide range of case studies to understand why various nations and economies develop differently, with varying success in achieving prosperity for its members. At the risk of oversimplifying, their conclusion is that successful economies that broadly benefit the members of society have the following institutional support: legal protections for private property and inventions; an equitable rule of law that applies broadly to all members of society, not just those in the favor of the government or ruling elite; strong enough central government power to enforce those laws; and limits on taxation so agricultural and business development, inventions, investment, and earnings are not disincentivized. An important lesson to take from their work mirrors President Reagan’s inaugural speech – limited government that supports and unleashes the individual and business development potential of all people is necessary for sustained and broad-based economic success, while too much government is counterproductive and stifling. On the other hand, lack of government regulation has sometimes led to human suffering and death and environmental destruction. The key is finding the right balance.
Is the United States a Democracy or Republic?
The Stability of Mixed Government and a Large Middle Class
Many people call the United States a democracy. But it is not a pure direct democracy or a pure representative democracy. It is a constitutional republic. What is the difference? Why did the founders structure the U.S. as a “mixed” form of republic instead of a pure democracy? And what did Benjamin Franklin mean when he allegedly said that the U.S. Constitution’s form of government is “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The word “democracy” literally means rule by the people. The term comes from the ancient Greek word dēmokratia, which was a combination of dēmos (people) and kratos (power or rule). It was first used to describe the political system that developed in some Greek city-states starting in the 5th century B.C. in which laws were created based on the vote of all citizens. Because the citizens were the lawmakers and voted directly on the laws, the system was a direct democracy. Representative democracy is a similar system; but instead of citizens voting directly on the laws, they elect representatives who make the laws.
The word “republic” literally means “the thing/matter of the people.” The term is a combination of the Latin words res (thing or matter) and publica (of the people). The term republic was first used to describe the form of government the ancient Romans had from the time they overthrew the last Roman king (around 509 B.C.) until the republic became corrupted and transformed into the Roman Empire in 27 BC. [1]
[1. The transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire culminated in 27 B.C. when the Roman Senate anointed Octavian with the title Augustus (majestic, great or venerable). The degeneration of the Republic’s system of government and checks and balances on power was not sudden. It occurred over a period of decades of corruption and civil war that near its end included the dictatorship of Julius Caesar. The history of the Roman Republic’s transformation into the Empire was well known to the U.S. founders, who sought to design a republican system of government that hopefully would not fall prey to that same process. Unfortunately, the U.S. is suffering from continued centralization of federal government power and some degeneration of its republican checks and balances that raise concerns about the U.S. heading down the path from republic to empire.]
Although the term “republic” has a literal meaning very similar to the literal meaning of “democracy,” the Roman republic was not a pure democracy. It was a mixed form of government with elements of monarchy (rule by one), an elective aristocracy/oligarchy [2] (rule by the few), and democracy. Since the Roman Republic, there have been a variety of different government structures that called themselves republics. “Republic” has come to mean almost any form of government that is in between pure democracy and rule by one or a few.
[2. Aristocracy is an ancient Greek concept of rule by the few who have distinguished themselves to be the best to rule for the common good, as shown by their virtue and contributions to the political community. The term aristocracy is a combination of aristos (best, noblest) and kratos (power or rule). Originally, aristocracy in ancient Greece referred to the ruling class of virtuous citizens, and the concept of being noble meant having high moral principles and ideals. Over time, aristocracy and nobleness degenerated from personal virtue that each person had to earn/demonstrate into a privileged class, often hereditary, defined by birth, wealth, or status. The result was oligarchy -- a corrupted version of rule by a few (often wealthy and/or powerful) who seek to use government power to benefit themselves and a limited number of others, rather than for the common good of the citizenry. The term oligarchy is a combination of oligoi (few) and arkhein (to rule).]
The American founders believed the only legitimate source of political power is “the people.” [3] In Federalist No. 39, James Madison described a republic as “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people.” Many of the advocates for the American Revolution were inspired by radical Whig [4] principles that the purpose of government was to protect the natural rights of the people. As noted by historian of the American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood: “The Whigs’ loyalty was always with the people. . . It seemed self evident to the Whigs that the promotion of the peoples’ happiness was the sole purpose of government.” (Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, p.19) That’s why the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution starts with the famous declaration that “We the People” established the Constitution and the federal government of the United States.
[3. The founders used the term “the people” in the same sense as ancient Greek democracy and the Roman Republic; that is, they meant those who qualified as citizens. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, each state determined its citizenry that could vote. Consistent with British legal tradition, many states at that time limited voting privileges to free men who were at least 21 years of age and owned a certain amount of property, among other qualifications. (From the Library of Congress’s Constitution Annotated) Throughout the history of the United States, the portion of the population that qualifies as citizens with voting rights has been expanded to include all Americans 18 years and older.]
[4. Radical Whigs refers to an extreme liberty-loving wing of the English Whigs. The Whigs started in England in the 1670s and 1680s. They were opposed to centralized and absolute government power. The Whigs helped lead the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, which was the beginning of the Whigs’ ascendency in British politics. The radical Whigs were an extreme faction of the Whigs who believed that after the Glorious Revolution mainstream Whigs had become corrupted by power and had centralized power too much in the capital city of London. Radical Whigs sought to further decentralize power. Radical Whig writings and ideas inspired many American colonists, first to assert greater political rights for the American colonies, and when that was denied, eventually to advocate for a revolutionary split from Great Britain.]
However, although the American revolutionaries believed that all government power arises from, and must be used to protect, the natural rights of the people and their private property, they did not think pure democracy (either direct or representative) was a good, secure system. Their distrust of pure democracy was based on studying the history of democracies and warnings against pure democracy that dated back to the ancient Greek philosophers.
The U.S. Constitutional system of government was designed after considering the various forms of government throughout European history (including ancient Greece and Rome) and the Iroquois Confederacy (For the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy see here, here, and here) to determine which could best achieve their goals of protecting the natural rights of the people and their private property. The founders wanted a system that would always be subject to ultimate control by the voters, but would also balance individual liberty with stability and sufficient strength to withstand outside aggression and internal insurrection.
The U.S. founders intentionally decided against a simple direct democracy and a simple representative democracy, because those had proven in many instances to degenerate into one or more of the following problems -- a tyranny of the majority, loss of liberty and rights for minorities, civil war, and/or anarchy/chaos – and those problems often resulted in a reactionary authoritarian state seizing power to restore order. Direct and representational democracy were prone to such problems since at least as far back as ancient Greece. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato warned that democracy (rule by the masses) results in an ever-increasing desire for freedom from all law and order, which results in disorder and eventually a tyrant assuming control.
Aristole was another ancient Greek philosopher who warned against the dangers of pure democracy. He identified three basic forms of government: rule by the one, rule by the few, and rule by the many. He taught that each of these had a “good” form (meaning that power was used for the general good of the society) and a “bad” form (meaning that power was used to benefit a select few individuals or groups). Aristotle assigned different names to the good and bad versions of these governmental forms. The good form of rule by one person was "monarchy" and the bad form "tyranny." The good from of rule by a few was "aristocracy" and the bad form "oligarchy." The good form of rule by many (aka popular government) was "polity" and the bad form was "democracy." Aristotle used the word "democracy" to refer to a government by the general public in which the majority abused their power to benefit themselves and/or oppress the minority, rather than acting for the common good. For a simple explanation, see Aristotle - Politics, Philosophy, Logic | Britannica. For a more detailed examination of Aristotle’s politics, see, e.g., Aristotle’s Political Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
The U.S. founders were influenced by Aristotle's categorization of "democracy” as the bad version of popular rule (“popular” meaning of the general public). They were wary of the tendency of the majority of the general population to put their own interests first (often at the expense of the minority), rather than acting for the common good, which tended to cause simple democracies to degenerate into in-fighting and chaos. The U.S. founders also knew that the danger of government abuse was not limited to democracy. They knew that monarchy, oligarchy, and theocracy (rule by religious leaders) were subject to abuse. John Adams expressed this concern in 1814:
Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty.
As John Adams noted, every simple form of government (democracy, aristocracy, monarchy, etc.) is subject to abuse and bringing about its own demise, because people tend to be selfish and will try to use power to benefit themselves and their chosen groups.
Although the Americans wanted a new government that would protect the rights of the people and promote people’s happiness, they did not believe a pure democracy would achieve that in a lasting way. The U.S. founders’ goals were fairness, stability, and the common good. The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution expressed their goals for their new government:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[If you want to hear the Schoolhouse Rock video of the Preamble, here’s a link.]
The Preamble expresses a number of goals other than a pure democratic process of the majority getting to decide whatever the majority wants. In fact, many of the goals (justice, domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty) could not be achieved and preserved for future generations if they were subject to a purely democratic process. History had proven that the desires of the majority are sometimes destructive to those in the minority and to the common good. And history had also shown that every other simple form of government (aristocracy, monarchy, etc.) was prone to the same abuses.
If all government systems are subject to abuse and eventual demise, how were the Americans to structure a “more perfect” system that would protect the rights of the people and promote the people’s happiness in a secure and lasting way? They heeded the advice of Aristotle and the Roman statesman Cicero (in his work De Republica), who argued that in most cases the best government is a kind of “mixed” constitution that blends the strengths of multiple forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) while trying to limit their weaknesses in order to create a balance that prevents tyranny and promotes stability. Aristotle’s approach to the balance of power also included consideration of economic classes. He noted that the dominant class in oligarchy is typically the wealthy, whereas in democracy it is the poor. His “mixed” constitution was intended to result in rule by a large “middle” group of citizens -- a moderately wealthy class between the rich and poor. Aristotle thought that the middle class would provide more stability, because he believed those who possess money and property in moderation find it “easiest to obey the rule of reason” and are less likely than the rich or poor to act unjustly toward their fellow citizens. Aristotle believed a constitution based on the middle class is the stable middle ground between the extremes of oligarchy (which he characterized as rule by the rich) and democracy (which he characterized as rule by the poor).
When the U.S. founders designed the U.S. Constitution, they followed Aristotle’s and Cicero’s advice that to restrain the abusive and self-destructive nature of all pure (simple) types of government, it is necessary to have all government power constrained by various checks and balances. The founders decided the key to accomplishing this was to have a mixed form of government that combines elements of democracy, aristocracy, and even some monarchy:
1. The U.S. federal government is a representative democracy in the sense that the House of Representatives, Senate, and President are all elected by the citizens. The Constitution initially was somewhat less democratic with respect to the election of Senators and the President, and more democratic with respect to the House of Representatives, but that has changed over time.
a. Under Article I, Section 3 of the original Constitution, the Senators were not elected by the citizens. Instead, each state’s legislature elected the Senators for that state. However, the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913 made the Senators elected by the citizens of each state.
b. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the President and Vice President are not elected directly by the citizens. Instead, each state appoints “electors” (in number equal to the state’s Representatives plus Senators), and it is the electors who elect the President and Vice President. Each state’s legislature decides how that state will appoint its electors. Every state and the District of Columbia has its citizens choose its electors based on whom the citizens vote for President. Although the U.S. Constitution and federal law do not require the electors to vote for the same Presidential candidate as the state’s citizens, many state laws and political party pledges do require that. Throughout U.S. history, more than 99% of electors have voted for the President that the state’s citizens voted for. Thus, in practical terms, the vote of the citizens of each state has determined who gets that state’s electoral votes for President and Vice President.
c. Representatives have always been elected directly by the citizens of each Congressional District. But the number of Representatives per citizen has become less democratic over time (discussed below).
2. The Senate is a form of aristocracy (rule by a few, supposed to be those best suited to govern). The Constitution limits each state to having only two Senators, elected every six years. The intent of having such a small number of Senators with a relatively long term of office was that each state would elect only those best suited for governing. In addition, the Senate preserved the equal vote per state aspect of the Articles of Confederation that the U.S. Constitution was replacing. (Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had only one vote in Congress.)
3. The House of Representatives is designed to be less aristocratic and more democratic than the Senate. There are 435 Representatives, elected every two years. Because Representatives are more numerous and elected more often than Senators, they should (in theory) be somewhat closer to pure representation of the people than Senators. But the number of Representatives per citizen has become less democratic over time. Initially, each Representative was elected by Congressional Districts of about 30,000–60,000 citizens. As the U.S. population grew, the number of representativesRepresentatives grew until it reached 435 in 1911 (which was about one Representative per appx. 220,000 citizens). In 1929, Congress decided to freeze the number of Representatives at 435 in order to keep the number of Representatives to what they considered to be a manageable size. As the population continues to grow, the number of citizens per Representative continues to grow. In 2020, there were about 760,000 citizens per Representative, which is considerably less democratic than the U.S. founders envisioned. Some of the considerations and implications of changing the size of the House of Representatives are discussed here.
4. The Presidency has some limited elements of monarchy (rule by one). To be clear, the President is not a monarch. The American Revolution was fought in order not to have a monarch. However, the founders believed that in order to be effective, the executive branch had to be able to act quickly in some matters (e.g., for military defense and enforcement of federal laws) and to be somewhat independent of the legislative and judicial branches. The position of President concentrates in one elected official certain executive powers typically held by a monarch. But in keeping with the goal of constraining all government powers to prevent tyranny, the independence and authority of the President/executive is subject to Constitutional limitations and checks and balances by the legislative and judicial branches. The President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces (though subject to Congress holding the powers to declare war and to restrict funding of the government), the power to make treaties and judicial appointments (subject to advice and consent by the Senate), and the power to grant pardons. The Constitution further limits the President’s authority compared to a typical monarch in other respects. The President is not a hereditary monarch, but an elected position limited to four years per election, is subject to Constitutional limits on authority, and can be removed from office if impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
5. All government power in the U.S. is subject to certain individual constitutional rights in the Constitution’s first ten amendments (i.e., the Bill of Rights) and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that protect everyone, including those not in the majority.
Also, although the Constitution does not specifically provide for an economic middle class, the U.S. has generally had a broad middle class as a result of the economic and political freedom provided for by the Constitution. If Aristotle was right, the stability of the U.S. Constitution’s mixed government is enhanced by the U.S. having a broad middle class.
By design, the United States is not a pure democracy. It is a constitutional republic that intentionally combines elements of democracy, aristocracy, monarchy, and certain unalienable individual rights. The founders specifically referred to the U.S. Constitution’s government as a republic. For example, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . . .” The intent was to create a system of checks and balances and separation of powers to prevent tyranny and promote long-term stability.
The founders devised that system as best they could. But they understood that no system itself can guarantee freedom, because all systems are subject to corruption. As noted by James Madison in a 1788 speech during the debates about whether the states should ratify the U.S. Constitution, the preservation of liberty ultimately depends on the civic virtue and wisdom of the general population of citizens to elect people of civic virtue to public office:
Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.
Benjamin Franklin expressed a similar concern on the final day of the Constitutional Convention (September 17, 1787), but included a warning (echoing Plato’s belief) that corruption among the general population could lead to the imposition of tyranny to restore order:
I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become
so corrupted as to need despotic government.
Benjamin Franklin was right to describe the U.S. Constitution’s form of government as a republic. He was also right to add the caveat, “if you can keep it.” The form of the government by itself is not enough to guarantee continued freedom. Although the U.S. federal government is not a pure democracy, its success depends on the great mass of the people. It depends on all citizens to exercise civic responsibility – to wisely elect people who will honor the rule of law and espect the Constitution, and for citizens to do the same in their daily lives.
Our country’s freedom, and our republican form of government with individual Constitutional rights, was purchased at great cost by the sacrifices of our forebearers. It is up to us to work to ensure that we can keep those rights. As President Abraham Lincoln urged us in his Gettysburg Address, spoken during the Civil War in 1863 but always relevant:
. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.