National Republic vs. Federal Democracy.

I found this on my friend Corey's myspace page and had to share it with you.

National Republic vs. Federal Democracy:...by D’arcLyte Category: News and Politics
National Republic vs. Federal Democracy: Understanding the Political Nature of the United States of America
- by D'arcLyte ©, Sept. 16th, 2004
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Constitution for the United States of America purportedly guaranteed a Republican form of government, so did the constitutions of the several States. Nowhere in those instruments, nor in the constitutions predecessor, the Articles of Confederacy, is the mention of Democracy. The Founding Fathers didn't want Democracy and as will be shown, they knew it leads to the destruction of nations employing it. Many of the founders voiced very strongly, and expressly against Democracy. In the understanding of the founders, irrespective of recent decades of judicial legal wording manipulations, Democracy was not a "Republican form" of government.
A Republic is one of the highest forms of government yet devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human focus, care and maintenance. If neglected, it will quickly and silently deteriorate into a variety of less desirable forms of government including Democracy, Anarchy, Oligarchy, or Dictatorship as witnessed by our recent governmental slide. "Representative National Republic" defined herein as a republic that is a "government of laws and not of men". This definition appears to be most appropriate while accurately describing what the founders intended, to wit:
"Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide", John Quincy Adams, founder.
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, Democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived", John Quincy Adams, founder.
"A simple Democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils", Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence. "Pure Democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage", John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
"It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure Democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion", Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text.
Why are the people promoting Democracy? What the $%^& are we voting for? Don't you understand that we are partially living in, and voting for more socialistic governance? People, we have been warned that this is societal and political suicide. Democracy does not promote freedom, it lies about promoting freedoms and in the end, by force if necessary, takes all those freedoms away as witnessed by all recorded history, James Madison said:
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths."
Virginia's Edmund Randolph, participating in the 1787 constitutional convention demonstrated a clear grasp of Democracy's inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was:
"[T]o provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of Democracy...."
Samuel Adams, Declaration of Independence signatory, championed the new Constitution in his State precisely because it would not create a Democracy, he stated:
"Democracy never lasts long," "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself." He insisted, "There was never a Democracy that 'did not commit suicide'."
New York's Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his State, thundered:
"It has been observed that a pure Democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated:
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
Fisher Ames served in the United States Congress during the eight years of George Washington's presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution for that State, he thus defined Democracy:
"[A] government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders."
On another occasion, he labeled Democracy's majority rule one of "the intermediate stages towards … tyranny." Ames later opined:
"Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes."
And in an essay entitled "The Mire of Democracy", Ames wrote that the framers of the Constitution:
"[I]ntended our government should be a Republic, which differs more widely from a Democracy than a Democracy from a despotism."
John Marshall, Supreme Court chief justice, 1801-1835, echoed the sentiments of Ames:
"Between a balanced Republic and a Democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
American poet James Russell Lowell warned:
"Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor."
Ralph Waldo Emerson joined Lowell in his disdain for Democracy, remarking:
"Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors."
Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans:
"I have long been convinced, that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both."
Perhaps the most concise and definitive condemnation of Democracy came from Lord Acton:
"The one prevailing evil of Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
In light of the Founders' view on the subject of Republics and Democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word "Democracy," but does mandate:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government."
By the 20th century however, the falsehoods that Democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established such a government for the United States of America became an increasingly widespread fallacy. This mis-information was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson's famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I "to make the world safe for Democracy", and by President Franklin Roosevelt's 1940 exhortation that America "must be the great arsenal of Democracy" by rushing to England's aid during WWII.
From the U.S. Government Training Manual, No. 2000-25 WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928 and prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff, under the title of "Citizenship":
"Democracy: A government of the masses, authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression; results in mobocracy; attitude toward property is communistic negating property rights; attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences; its result is dem-o-gogism, license, agitation, discontent and anarchy."
"Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best suited to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles that establish evidence with a strict regard for consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass, it avoids the dangerous extremes of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice contentment and progress, is a standard for government around the world."
The War Department training manual went on to state:
"Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.'"
By 1952 the U.S. Army via the new War Department Field Manual 21-13, sub-section entitled "The Soldier's Guide" was singing the praises of Democracy instead of warning against it. This new manual incorrectly stated: "Because the United States is a Democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and run...." [Emphasis in original]
Meanwhile, other important voices continued to warn against the hurried siren song for Democracy and in 1931, England's Duke of Northumberland issued a booklet entitled "The History of World Revolution" in which he stated:
"The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."
In 1939, historians Charles and Mary Beard added their strong voices in favor of political historical accuracy in their "America in Mid-Passage", writing:
"At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a Democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of 'We, the People,' in the preamble.... When the Constitution was framed no respectable person called himself or herself a Democrat."
On September 17, 1961 [Constitution Day], John Birch Society founder Robert Welch delivered an important speech, entitled "Republics and Democracies," in which he proclaimed:
"This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let's keep it that way!"
The speech was later published and widely distributed in pamphlet form amounting to a jolting wake-up call for many Americans. In his remarks, Welch not only presented the evidence to show that the Founding Fathers had established a Republic and had condemned Democracy, but he warned that those basic definitions had been distorted, and that powerful forces were at work to convert the American Republic into a Democracy in order to bring about eventual totalitarian dictatorship.
Eighteenth century historian Alexander Fraser Tytler, says Lord Woodhouselee is claimed to have argued:
"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a Democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
And as British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century:
"You can never have a revolution in order to establish a Democracy. You must have a Democracy in order to have a revolution."
Communist revolutionary Karl Marx understood this principle all too well. Which is why, in "The Communist Manifesto" this enemy of individual freedoms stated:
"[T]he first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of Democracy." For what purpose? To "abolish private property"; to "wrest, by degrees, capital from the bourgeoisie"; to "centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State."
Another proclaimed champion of Democracy was Communist Mao Tse-tung who proclaimed in 1939 [a decade before consolidating control on the Chinese mainland]:
"Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society."
Still another well-known champion of Democracy is Mikhail Gorbachev, who stated in his 1987 book Perestroika:
"[A]ccording to Lenin, Socialism and Democracy are indivisible.... The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites Socialism with Democracy [emphasis in the original] and revives the Leninist concept.... We want more Socialism and, therefore, more Democracy."
The push for Democracy has only been possible because the Constitution is being ignored, violated, and circumvented by our un-informed and mis-guided vote. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal and national government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include socialistic agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc. Under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to pass any law it chooses, it is only authorized to pass laws that are constitutional [except in D.C. and its other territories where Congress exercises sovereignty, this does not include most areas inside the 50 states]. Anybody who doubts the intent of the Founders to restrict federal and national powers, thereby protecting the rights of the individual, should review the language in the Bill of Rights, including the opening phrase of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...").
Fisher Ames, one of the great Founding Fathers and author of the First Amendment, argued forcefully that the new United States of America was to be constructed as a "Constitutional Republic". Ames' demonstrated the fine intellectual rigor required to distinguish between democratic and republican forms of government, to wit:
"A Democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a Democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."
Ames further stated that:
"Liberty has never lasted long in a Democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism."
In fact Ames believed that it was:
"Democracy that pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms."
For pure Democracy, Ames argued, would lend itself to the new nation's coming under the influence of the basest of human motivations: greed and a lack of public virtue. Ames further believed that:
"[T]he United States must lash itself to a constitution of laws, not the whim of democratic preference."
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin:
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded:
"A Republic, if you can keep it"
Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry, later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review recorded that purported exchange. Not only have we failed to keep it, most people don't even know what it is and ignorantly keep voting for its further subjugation and destruction.
Our society used to exist noticeably within a "Republican form" of government (approx. up until the civil war), it has taken all this time to subvert our Republic into a Democracy, which we now live noticeably under. The revealed time scale shows how strong a Republic can be, and how difficult it is to subvert it. Don't be fooled, the current Republican and Democratic parties are now opposite ends of the same side of the coin... Democracy… Wake up people!
Just because Democracy [a.k.a. self voted enslavement] is the only choice that is currently presented for us to vote for does not mean we have to vote for it... if we do, then we deserve, and shall by force live with the resulting societal enslavement. If we resist, then our license to live will be revoked. We cannot vote away our present or future enslaved predicament in a Democracy; it is virtually impossible, history is our witness.
Again, as British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century:
"You can never have a revolution in order to establish a Democracy. You must have a Democracy in order to have a revolution."
In a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens with the few controlling the many or the one. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether the one or the many, and one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. And similarly, one remains free to exercise his or her Rights without government interference, or interference from the many. Here the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people is obliged to its owner, the people.
"No such ideas obtain here that the State is sovereign to the people: at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects [unless the African slaves among us may be so called] and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L. Ed. 440 (1793).
Let's explain the difference another way. A republic is a government of law under a constitution. The constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. For example, the suspected criminal cannot be denied the right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise. A democracy, meanwhile, is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever 51% of the majority says goes, no matter what.
Which do you want, a Democracy where the many or the few can tell you how to live your life, or do you want a Republic whereby the individual man and woman, with all Rights and expressions of Rights secured and defended are recognized Sovereign? When was the last time you felt like you had your rights defended? When was the last time you felt like the Sovereign?
I for one cannot with good conscience, place a vote into a rigged democratic system that purposely brings about the eventual enslavement of my fellow countrymen. The folks on the current ballot know this material inside and out. What the hell do you think they are doing?! What the hell do you think you are doing?! Don't you really want to know? Liberty and ignorance cannot co-exist; we must choose our path… Thomas Jefferson was under no illusion when he stated:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be… If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."
And well informed with the truth my friends, not the half-truth fairy tales the spinners throw at us in the newspaper and at the 10 o'clock ritual feeding, nor that doctored, half-truth version of history that our children are subjected to in the government regulated and controlled public school system.
We should absolutely refuse to vote for Democracy. Our battle cry should be "Back To The Republic for Which We Stand."
The wool has not been pulled over our eyes; we were born wearing a hood. And since our parents didn't know any better, they left it on. Further argument on these issues will be forthcoming but the founders' intent is extremely crystal clear and simple, they set up a Republic not a Democracy. It's well past time to take back our rightful organic heritage and quit voting for this Democratic government that is fast leading us to our permanent national enslavement and destruction.
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." American Association v. Douds 330 U.S. 382.
Secondary Treatise:
Exposing the distasteful attitudes the founders held regarding Democracy, let us now look at the real balance of power that the founders intended to implement in the then contemplated, United States of America.
"In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution", Thomas Jefferson.
Nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that the founders created a Democracy; this is absolutely and simply not true as should now be evident from the information presented thus far.
Our "Representative National Republic" form of government contained a very limited democratic process confined to the election of representatives of the States to Congress, the rest of America was intended to operate on the general principles of a republic based upon quasi common law ideals. The new, current trend of electing Senators by mass vote is another step downward toward pure Democracy. There are two forms of government set up in this country, the national controlled by the States, and the federal strictly controlled by Congress. Congress legislates for both. Neither holds sovereignty over the other in their respective spheres but may acquiesce thru contract. The republic side of government as it were, barely seems to exist in practice anymore as it has been largely usurped; yet, it can still be resurrected and re-ushered into its rightful place via the voice of the people, come' on people let's speak up.
Today's some-call Democratic Republic is a mis-balance of the concepts of a Republic and a Democracy. This term represents nothing more than a particular stage on a sliding scale as our Republic changes into a Democracy. This nation will fail if we keep up with this Democratic-Vote-Ourselves-Out-of-Rights policy. Every time we vote for more governmental power we are voting away more of our rights and freedoms. By the way, this is all one can vote for in a Democracy. You can't have it both ways. British historian, Lord Acton said:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!"
John Marshall, Supreme Court Chief Justice, 1801-1835, stated:
"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
Elbridge Gerry representing Massachusetts at the Continental Congress, warned:
"The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots."
In Alexander Hamilton's June 21, 1788 speech, he recognizes the fallacy of the theory of applying a democracy, "the many shall speak as one":
"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
The government's greatest victory was convincing the world that democracy was an essential good. Misconceptions of the beguiled masses aside, democracy clearly destroys freedom, and its fundamental disrespect of property rights is unquestionably opposite to the prosperity which democracy contrarily boasts. Empirical historical evidence indicates that democracy promotes ethnic and religious conflict, loss of rights and property, and eventual slavery at the hands of dictatorship in a socialistic state. This begs the question; why would our so-called government emphatically promote such a well-known, eminently destructive devise as democracy?
Rome slowly converted from a Republic into a Democracy and look what happened. Come on people, you had better *&%$ wake up before it is too *&%$ late! or you and your progeny will soon be suffering the same fate as Rome. The same historical fate that every other democracy has historically experienced; they self vanquish from the face of the earth after self-voted dictatorship has run its course. Is that what you want? That is what you are voting for! Didn't you know? Now you do. Change it, do something about it, educate yourselves, your children, and your friends into taking your collective futures into your own hands before your hands are forcibly taken from you.
Again, we should absolutely refuse to vote for Democracy. Our battle cry should be "Back To The Republic for Which We Stand."
Note: The Army manuals containing the above-described definitions of Republic and Democracy were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt, without any authority to do so, appeared to make private ownership of our lawful money [US Minted Gold Coins] illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Talk about good investment.
Almost overnight Roosevelt, the most popular president in the 20th century [elected 4 times] looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good, in the name of Democracy. His right hand man, Harry Hopkins, suggested many of Roosevelt's policies, he said:
"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".
We use the word 'politics' to describe the current process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'... Think about what you are really doing the next time you think you are voting for freedom.
The founders were not at all confused about the meaning of Democracy. They were largely unanimous and unequivocal in their rejection of it for the new nation.
At the time of the American Revolution and Constitution, the meanings of the words "Republic" and "Democracy" had been well established and were readily understood. Most of this accepted meaning derived from the Roman and Greek experiences. The two words are not, as most of today's Liberals would have you believe — and as most of them probably believe themselves — parallels in etymology, or history, or meaning. The word Democracy [in a political rather than a social sense, of course] had always referred to a type of government, as distinguished from monarchy, or autocracy, or oligarchy, or principate. The word Republic, before 1789, had designated the quality and nature of a government, rather than its structure.
Another, older definition of the word uses the term "Republic" to describe what is commonly, and mistakenly called a "Representative Democracy"; it restricts the term "Democracy" to refer only to "Direct" or "Pure Democracy". Even this usage does not cover the many Republics, past and present, that are not Democratic at all [though a few modern ones admit their lack of Democracy].
Using this older meaning, it is mistakenly said that the United States is a "Federal Republic" [see definition below], not a Democracy. [Although most people, including most Americans, call it a Democracy, they are using the modern definition, not the older one referred to here]. This usage of the term Republic was particularly common around the time of the American Founding Fathers. The authors of the Constitution for the United States of America intentionally chose what they called a Republic for several reasons. For one, it is impractical to collect votes from every citizen on every political issue. In theory, representatives would be more informed and less emotional than the general populace. Furthermore, a Republic can be contrived to protect against the "tyranny of the majority."
Definition: The word federal comes from the French word "federal" which comes from the Latin foedus, foederis. To give you an idea of the true meaning of foedus when it is used as an adjective it means foul, hideous, revolting; vile, disgraceful. Feudal also comes from the Medieval Latin word foedum. Feudalism was a system where a lord held title to the land and the vassals and serfs lived on it. The vassal owed service and fealty to his lord.
The Federalist Papers outline the idea that pure Democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. By forming what they called a Republic, in which representatives are chosen in many different ways [The President, House, Senate, and state officials are all elected differently], it is more difficult for a majority to control enough of the governmental power to infringe upon the rights of the minority.
The following external treatise is from Steven Montgomery (Utah)
The U.S. Constitutional Republic is more than simple equal representation however. The differences between the American Republic and a Democracy of equal representation are highlighted by the fact that unequal representation was written into the Constitution. For instance, Article 1, Section 2, says, ". . . each state shall have at least one Representative," regardless of population. Or, in the same article and section, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states . . .," even if the number of people represented is not the same. The biggest difference however comes with Article 1 Section 3, which states that regardless of size or population, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state."
When setting up their Republican governments most states adopted the Federal Model, known as the "Federal analogy," and assigned one State Senator to each county. Reasoning that just as Federal Senators represented their respective State (before adoption of the seventeenth amendment), State Senators should represent counties. Furthermore, Hamilton reasoned, if the Federal Government were to deny the States this independent power it would be a "premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments (Federalist 59)."
Advantages of the "Federal analogy" are numerous — such as: The tendency to pull power from centralized State Government back to counties; Keeping counties whole, rather than split; to give sparsely populated rural counties protection from heavily populated metropolitan areas; placing a check on gerrymandering; The identity it would give citizens in their particular county; To protect lesser populated counties from counties that have major industries and thus competing interests.
At any rate, the Constitution also left it entirely up to the States to decide how to conduct their elections, determining who was eligible to vote, what positions were needed to run State government, how officers of government were elected, and the drawing up of districts. States, for instance, were perfectly free to adopt the Federal analogy and assign their state Senators by county.
All of this was to change however. Beginning with a series of cases better known as the "Reapportionment cases," the "Federal Analogy" was denied to the States and the Court instead demanded that "The seats of both houses of a bi-cameral legislature must be apportioned on a population basis (Reynolds v. Sims)" and demanded that there should be "One person, One Vote." For justification the Supreme Court twisted the so-called "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th amendment. The Equal Protection Clause simply means that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law and were thus entitled to "One Person, One Vote." But, as Justice Harlan's dissenting voice pointed out, the equality clause has nothing at all to do with the States power of choosing "any democratic method they pleased for the apportionment of their legislatures."
Further, as we learned, "One Person, One Vote" was not built into the Constitution for the United States of America. Instead it was unequal representation that was built in. The dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter demonstrated this knowledge when he wrote that equal representation, "has never been generally practiced . . . It was not the English system, it was not the colonial system, it was not the system chosen for the national government by the Constitution, it was not the system . . . practiced by the States . . . [and it was not then] practiced by the states today."
So today, to recap, because of the Reapportionment cases (Baker v. Carr & Reynolds v. Sims), States are denied a Republican form of government when it comes to their State Senators. State Senators can no longer represent single counties but instead Senatorial districts must be drawn up by population.
The Supreme Courts faulty reasoning on this issue should be obvious to anyone. Taking the Supreme Courts logic — Why shouldn't populous states such as Texas or California have say, 75 or 100 U.S. Senators, and limit sparsely populated states such as North Dakota or Wyoming to only one? The Founders clearly rejected proportional representation for the Senate. Isn't it about time the Supreme Court reversed itself and allow the States freedom to adopt the "Federal Analogy" if they choose — instead of punishing them with the worst of all forms of government — unchecked Democracy?