On Andy Obermann's "A Republic, Not a Democracy"
by Andy Andrew

My compliments to Andy Obermann. I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of his commentary on "A Republic, Not a Democracy." It would be even better if he revisited two significant points.

First, the basic concept of one of his key sentences is 180 degrees reversed. "The only rights we have are those granted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights." As worded his article implies that these rights of "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," were inherently/originally held by some state which could grant them to its citizens. Please revisit The Declaration of Independence. I believe you will find these as among certain inalienable Rights endowed by "...their Creator." The Constitution cannot grant rights that are the inalienable endowment of one's Creator.

The US Constitution was carefully crafted to be consistent with The Declaration of Independence and granted limit authority to the newly formed Federal Government. Even then it was not restrictive enough to gain ratification by the individual States. Only after the Bill of Rights was added, formally prohibiting Congress from passing any law infringing upon rights of the individual, did it gain acceptance via ratification.

Secondly, he says our founding fathers abhorrence of democracy was well founded and was well articulated in comments attributed to "Alexander Tyler." Unfortunately, I believe you will be unsuccessful in validating that familiar passage. The closest I ever came was in writings traced to a 18th century Scotsman, Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler (sic). Tytler's writing demonstrates a common and valid line of reasoning. But if he can find a well authenticated direct quote I hope he will share it with us.

Again, thank Mr. Obermann on a good contribution. Keep up the good work. Apparently not all of his teachers have been dominated by the NEA.

Email the Editor