Second, democracy was never intended: the Constitution promises a republican form of government. Federalist 10 explains the difference, respecting the citizens of the states and the country: “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.” This last assumption has not always proven valid. For example, I do not think the invasion of Iraq was the will of the people.
Federalist 10 continues with a concern which today seems more like a warning: “On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.” In this regard, Federalist 10 argues in favor of a federal republic under the premise that larger is better.
With Barack Obama, a civic people seem to suffer Federalist 10’s worst nightmare. For example, consider Thomas Sowell’s comment in today’s column (12/24), “One of the most obscene acts of the Obama administration . . . was to launch a criminal investigation of CIA agents who had used harsh interrogation methods against captured terrorists in the wake of the devastating Sep. 11, 201, aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.” Also, consider the Obama administration’s ruthless use of Congress’s folly to orchestrate US v Windsor. (Congress’s act defending marriage took the unconstitutional basis that it is Judeo-Christian tradition. However, civil marriage licensing protects a child’s inalienable right to the dignity and equality of being loved and reared by the couple who conceived the child. Civil protections guard against defaulting or abusive couples, numerous as they may be.)
A solution to this tyranny and incompetence is to reform the people’s competition for 50% plus one vote so as to lord it over the 50% less one vote, a form of democracy, and restore the rule of law. The objective 70% supermajority, who comprise a civic people, those who wish to use both the preamble and physics-based ethics to assure that the people are being served, must become motivated to supervise governance. By “supervise governance” I mean let the elected and appointed officials know what a people want and demand that it be done. For example, a people does not want its progeny to inherit debt. A civic people's power is through informed voting respecting collaborative goals.
Physics-based ethics has five elements, which I will illustrate with a principle: a child has the inalienable right to the dignity and equality of being loved and reared by the couple who conceived the child. A hierarchy of monogamies, with over-arching psychological maturities, is involved in the culturally evolved, ethical human-reproduction. Among the five ethical provisions, first, a person acquires the understanding that a child is conceived by a man and a woman; a couple should not conceive until they have demonstrated they are in monogamy for life--a generational process involving grandparents and beyond; monogamy means both psychological and physical intimacy with none but spouse; and the couple wish to extend their mutual love and prosperity to progeny: their children and grandchildren and beyond. Second, each spouse conducts themselves according to this understanding. Third, the couple does not encourage others to compromise a child’s equality and dignity. Fourth, the couple obtains civil license, making their civic intentions clear, and codifying a civic people’s obligations to each family member. Fifth, the family remains kind toward people who for whatever reasons civically seek happiness beyond understanding and civil order; the family is alert to needed change. These five considerations are focused on children yet benefit society.
The five principles of physics-based ethics apply in more mundane civic issues, such as vehicular traffic regulations. A person does the work to understand the regulations, obeys them, does not encourage people to break them, maintains a driver’s license and liability insurance, and stays alert to changes that may be needed.
It seems to me a child’s inalienable right to equality and dignity is what motivated Mr. Guidry to write. I think overt emergence of a people who use the preamble and physics-based ethics to direct and supervise civic governance would help his cause.