Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People
Randy E. Barnett
Released: Apr 19, 2016. 325 pages.
A concise history of the long struggle between two fundamentally opposing constitutional traditions, from one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars—a manifesto for renewing our constitutional republic.
The Constitution of the United States begins with the words: “We the People.” But from the earliest days of the American republic, there have been two competing notions of “the People,” which lead to two very different visions of the Constitution.
Those who view “We the People” collectively think popular sovereignty resides in the people as a group, which leads them to favor a “democratic” constitution that allows the “will of the people” to be expressed by majority rule. In contrast, those who think popular sovereignty resides in the people as individuals contend that a “republican” constitution is needed to secure the pre-existing inalienable rights of “We the People,” each and every one, against abuses by the majority.
In Our Republican Constitution, renowned legal scholar Randy E. Barnett tells the fascinating story of how this debate arose shortly after the Revolution, leading to the adoption of a new and innovative “republican” constitution; and how the struggle over slavery led to its completion by a newly formed Republican Party. Yet soon thereafter, progressive academics and activists urged the courts to remake our Republican Constitution into a democratic one by ignoring key passes of its text. Eventually, the courts complied.
Drawing from his deep knowledge of constitutional law and history, as well as his experience litigating on behalf of medical marijuana and against Obamacare, Barnett explains why “We the People” would greatly benefit from the renewal of our Republican Constitution, and how this can be accomplished in the courts and the political arena.
View this title on Amazon.com
#1: nolu chan To: tpaine (#0)
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45874
Title: Our Republican Constitution
Source: Amazon
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 21, 2016
Author: Randy Barnett
Post Date: 2016-04-21 18:54:18 by tpaine
nolu chan posted on 2016-05-15 04:22:25 Reply Private Reply
#2: Gatlin To: tpaine (#0)
https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062412287/our-republican-constitution
Copyright © 2016 HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-15 04:42:46 Reply Private Reply
#3: tomder55 To: tpaine (#0)
tomder55 posted on 2016-05-15 06:15:10 Reply Private Reply
#4: tomder55 To: nolu chan (#1)
When Madison examined the deficiencies of the Confederation before the Constitutional Convention he concluded that the fault lies in the people themselves . In Sec 11 of 'Injustice of the laws of States.' He writes :"If the multiplicity and mutability of laws prove a want of wisdom, their injustice betrays a defect still more alarming: more alarming not merely because it is a greater evil in itself, but because it brings more into question the fundamental principle of republican Government, that the majority who rule in such Governments, are the safest Guardians both of public Good and of private rights."
Madison wrote that we must be more realistic about popular majorities. The largest factions of special interests can always outvote the people of smaller special interests . But there is no safeguard for the rights of the minority or individuals in that system .
The Constitution that was crafted by the founders attempted to address this. "To secure the public goods and private rights against the danger of such a faction ,and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed."(Madison Federalist Papers #10)
tomder55 posted on 2016-05-15 09:29:55 Reply Private Reply
#5: misterwhite To: tomder55 (#4)
They should have put in term limits for Congress.
Far too many career politicians spend the vast majority of their time seeking re-election and fundraising rather than doing their job. And this is compounded by the fact that the big sources of campaign cash are the PACS, special interests, and lobbyists -- whose desires often compete with the people's.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-15 09:47:00 Reply Private Reply
#6: buckeroo To: tpaine (#0)
buckeroo posted on 2016-05-15 11:21:06 Reply Private Reply
#7: tomder55 To: misterwhite (#5)
Yes they probably should've . Congress addressed President term limits with an amendment . But they will never amend it to limit their own terms. Lucky for us ,the founders put in a provision for the Constitution to be amended by another process that bypassed Congress initiating the process.
tomder55 posted on 2016-05-15 13:41:31 Reply Private Reply
#8: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#5)
Or at least have explicitly recognized the rights of the people of each State to proscribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress.
"The dissent, written by Justice Thomas and joined by Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Scalia, argued that nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State the power to proscribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress."
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104srpt158/html/CRPT-104srpt158.htm
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-15 13:57:27 Reply Private Reply
#9: tpaine To: buckeroo (#6)
No, -- I'm selling a republican form of government, and the constitution that supports it..
How bout you?
tpaine posted on 2016-05-15 14:39:55 Reply Private Reply