The US Constitution (Art IV, S4) guarantees a republican form of government, representative rule of law, not a Republican Party

Jonathan Miltimore, in “How the Ancient Greeks ‘Protected’ Democracy—and What It Teaches Us Today”, Epoch Times, December 22, 2024, wrote excellent commentary without citing the Democrat Party’s futile promotion of liberal democracy. The extant Democrat Party would overtake the United States’ constitutional-republic, in other words, pursuit of statutory justice. Perhaps Miltimore, writing to his audience, wanted to avoid “Republican Party”.

I am writing to lessen Miltimore’s omission of “republic”. Most importantly, the civic people of the United States required, in their 1791 representative-ratification, that their states be guaranteed a republican form of government.
                Like any civic citizen, I do not want the Democrat Party to continue to destroy itself. Their chief problem is solidarity. They could, should, learn from the French that unity begs not only chaos but bloody ruin. Watching their lock-step arrogance during Speaker Mike Johnson’s January 3, 2025 address convinces me the Democrat Party invites ineffectiveness for the next 70 if not 100 years. Not one civil Democrat in the House of Representatives seems a civic citizen. “Civic” refers to reliable responsibility to necessary goodness.

Every human infant has the opportunity to discover, comprehend, and intend to pursue necessary goodness. My wife serenely, confidently lived this principle. Alas, it took 50 years of marriage for me to catch on and purse life without repetition of error, whether experienced or observed in others.

Below are my comments from/about Miltimore’s possible subject.

1.       In Greece 2500 years ago,

a.       Citizens could vote for a fellow citizen to be ostracized on opinion that they were too powerful or dangerous to the city – unwanted. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-athenians-voted-kick-politicians-out-if-enough-people-didnt-them-180976138/

b.       The state, controlled by the people, was obligated to justice not always delivered.

c.       Wrongfully punishing demagogues lessened civic responsibility to justice.

d.       Democracy often banned fellow citizens who held unpopular opinion, such as entitlement to luxury.

e.       Miltimore did not point out that Socrates was unjustly accused, convicted, and sentenced to either banishment or death.

                                                               i.      Socrates annoyed fellow citizens.

                                                             ii.      Socrates, despite friends’ objections, chose death, so died to defend the rule of law, even in injustice.

2.       Today, some people object to the power, authority, and responsibility to pursue privacy, justice, and free speech. Some seek a higher power to deliver their personal reliability – either a God or a government they choose.

a.       “In 2020, in an interview with NPR, New York Times Magazine writer Emily Bazelon declared free speech to be a threat to democracy.”

                                                               i.      It matters not to her that the US is a republic.

b.       “Writing in Vox, Ian Millhiser recently described the Constitution as a ‘broken’ document because of its many ‘antidemocratic features,’ including an executive branch that is ‘increasingly subordinate to the courts,’ a Senate that over-represents voters in sparsely populated states, and an Electoral College that hurts Democrats.”

                                                               i.      It matters not to him that the court sometimes unconstitutionally legislates.

                                                             ii.      It matters not to him that the Democrat Party conducted the Jan 6 charade by preventing participation by the Republican Party.

3.       US laws are intentional

a.       US Constitution, Article IV  Relationships Between the States, Section 4 Republican Form of Government, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

                                                               i.      The people in their states limit their state constitutions, reserving power, authority, and responsibility to themselves.

                                                             ii.      The people in their states limit the US Constitution, granting only necessary powers their states cannot fulfill, for example, defending all national borders and providing the necessary military power.

b.       “In his autobiography, Thomas Jefferson explained that ‘it’s not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected’.”

                                                               i.      Jefferson referred to legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the central government.

                                                             ii.      Also, each citizen democratically governs their city, their county, and their state under a federal constitutional-republic.

1.       Some neighborhoods even authorize a taxing district to influence local property owners.

2.       People approve local taxes because they want the services.

c.       “’The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny,’ James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 47.”

                                                               i.      Absolute power corrupts, and that is why I want a civic Democrat Party.

                                                             ii.      I want to vote for a Democrat who effects necessary goodness when the Republican Party is so leading and otherwise.

d.       ‘John Adams wrote. ‘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.’”

                                                               i.      Tyrants “Hugo Chávez, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini all rose to power through democratic elections”.

e.       The intentions stated in the preamble to the Constitution are: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common [defense], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

                                                               i.      I collapse these predicate phrases to nouns, as follows: integrity, justice, safety, strength, prosperity, and responsibility.

1.       The list excludes religion and race.

2.       Promoting either Protestantism or socialism is unconstitutional.

                                                             ii.      Union is not possible when some people don’t want integrity.

                                                           iii.      Neither a God nor a government can provide liberty to irresponsible citizens.

1.       The revered words of the 1776 Declaration of Independence – war against England -- are personal integrity: “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

2.       The 1791 US Constitution carries ratification by the civic faction of We the People of the United States.

4.       Failure to appreciate and pursue the intentions of the United States’ constitutional-republic invites personal ruin.

a.       Globally, “democracy” is, blindly, the individual’s opportunity to vote, whether they support tyranny or practice responsibility.

b.       But the civic citizen does the work to know how to vote in self-interest including their family and posterity, collaborating with fellow citizens. Civic citizens oppose tyrants.

c.       Democracy promises chaos and the Democrat Party need not advocate it.

d.       The civic faction of We the People of the United States accepts the power, the authority, and the responsibility to aid amending the Constitution whenever injustice is discovered.

e.       Each member of the civic faction owns commitment to their personal view of the intentions sentence in the preamble to the Constitution.

f.        Careless people may reform; criminals invite constraint; and tyrants beg annihilation.

g.       I propose licensing only the civic faction to vote in national, if not all, elections.

Every person is born with the potential to discover and accept the opportunity then pursue necessary goodness during their life. This principle was creatively practiced by Sumerian-speaking people 5500 years ago and expressed by Semitic-speaking people in Genesis 1:26-28:  Humankind may and can rule to necessary goodness on earth. The laws of physics affirm to everyone and the United States Constitution abstractly accommodates “to ourselves and our Posterity” the Genesis 1 suggestion.

Copyright©2025 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. 

Nationally accepting responsible human independence

Majority acceptance of the U.S. Preamble offers each citizen an achievable better future


"Acceptance" entails consideration, personal and civic comprehension, appreciation, and independent adoption of the U.S. Preamble's proposition. Each U.S. citizen should own and use a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.

Civic, civil, and legal subject, predicate, and object of the U.S. Constitution’s proposition:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

1.      Independently responsible citizens encourage the living people to public integrity.

2.      Responsible citizens maintain the U.S. Constitution.

Phil Beaver’s affirmative interpretation for living citizens, at least himself:

We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves and encourage fellow citizens to integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity in order to empower responsible human independence to living citizens.


Phil Beaver’s cautionary interpretation:

We the People of the United States intentionally discipline ourselves and encourage fellow citizens to both avoid and discourage deceit, injustice, disruption, weakness, poverty and dependence.

Discussion

“Liberty” to some citizens means license for tyranny, disruption, and bloodletting. Since June 21, 1788, tolerant citizens have allowed members of Congress[i] to neglect if not repress the U.S. Preamble.

Let self-interested voters choose candidates for election based on whether or not the candidate’s interpretation of the U.S. Preamble as stated in his or her platform and past political conduct evince conformation to the voter's interpretation (both improvements of my interpretations, above).

---

[i] Reliability rating: online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/01/11/americas-most-least-trusted-professions-infographic/#76f47857e94e.
  

Copyright©2020 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Updated 2/26/2020.

Restoring safety in the USA ed

            With the Advocate writing about coping but not addressing how to cope (article, 9/7/15, “As anxiety morphs . . . ”, online at theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/13359422-123/as-anxiety-morphs-into-modern ), it is noteworthy that a group in Baton Rouge has developed at EBRP libraries a theory by which inhabitants can restore civic hope--safety in the USA. The theory may at first seem mind boggling, but with a little consideration and perhaps some work with Wikipedia to check things out for yourself, it becomes clear: a civic people need to unhurriedly collaborate for civic morality, leaving private pursuits for privacy. The goal is no-harm personal liberty and domestic goodwill (PL&DG). In other words, increasing threats to civic viability make collaboration for civic safety vital.

          Most people would like civics that is “so well founded that” children and adults enjoy no-harm life in every decade of the life they live. In the last half century, the majority in the USA have either lost that feeling or lost the hope of ever feeling it. Yet some residents shun responsibility by responding to legislative prayer for police safety as though some phantasm will appear and fulfill civic duties. Only a civic people as a majority, transcendent culture can provide the safety that is needed for PL&DG. Neither politicians nor their gods can substitute for a civic people. Black church claiming god is black divide America like never before; white church scoffing at the notion assure the divide for the foreseeable future. A presidential candidate claiming a Muslim cannot be president does not understand the preamble. Christians! You are in trouble and you are sacrificing our safety along with yours. Stop it!

A Personal Quest

            As some lives unfold, confidence in civic coaching lessens. Contradictions become increasingly apparent. With the indicated modifications, I speculate that I understand this 1941  statement by Albert Einstein:

          It is the privilege of man’s moral genius . . . to advance ethical axioms which are so    
          comprehensive and so well founded that men will accept them as grounded in the vast mass of 
          their individual . . . experiences.

I think I have been on a thirty-year quest for a theory that could fulfill those 74 year-old words.

Seeking help

            On meeting someone or visiting a friend, the most precious thing to me is their opinions. Many people will share in close conversation. Others share in civic discussion. Many are uncomfortable sharing heartfelt opinion—don’t want to belabor or even share opinion. No-harm privacy is undeniable.

            Over the last seventeen months, EBRP library meetings and private conversations received collaboration by about thirty-five persons. Discussions began with both 1) a proposal to employ the preamble in civic negotiations rather than merely citing it and 2) Abraham Lincoln’s dream---“governance of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Today, there is a ten-point theory for collaboration by a civic people. Please google the essay, Theory of Collaboration Of By and For a Civic People, to read the theory. The civic improvements that were accomplished in the discussions are striking.
            In the September 20 library discussion, Mona asked, "How can I, an atheist, collaborate with a theist?" I responded, "You state that imagination is the first step in discovery, and imagination of gods occurred tens of thousands of years ago and has never been disproved but has proliferated into thousands of gods and non-god alternatives that billions of people believe in. Therefore, it remains in the file of unproven ideas, with their original emergences." Go on to say, "But this meeting was called to collaborate on a civic issue, so we are going to keep our gods private and focus on physics-based ethics. Safety is our collaborative responsibility." Mona asked, "But why will the theist collaborate with me?" I answered, "In 277 years under theism the USA has arrived at a state of chaos with, for example, four murders on one day last week and close to ten murders in a week. Theists must collaborate with atheists and other civic citizens for safety." Mona said, "You answered my question." I revised the presentation to bring out Mona's point: There must be clear incentive for collaboration or citizens will not collaborate. I hope readers notice that Mona and I collaborated--determined, difficult, emotionless yet expressive drive to understand each of others' candid statements.

Improvements came from candid discussion

            Seventeen months ago, the idea was for everyone to consider the preamble’s neglect over 227 years: the sentence is a civic contract not everyone wants to adopt. For example, some people prefer elitism, entitlements, political favor, crime, theism and other alienations rather than civic goals such as “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,” and the other goals, perhaps nine in total. As discussions progressed, ideas emerged and will be explained in the June 21, 2016 presentation, including the following:

             1. Some people, intentionally or not, reject the civic contract represented in the preamble.

               2. Thus, “We the People,” a totality, is unattainable, whereas “A Civic People” is                              practicable. Based on historical precedents, such as 70% of delegates to Philadelphia
                 signing the 1787 preamble and constitution for the USA, perhaps 70% of the people
                 would like to employ the preamble.

               3. Civic goals would empower benefits of inhabiting the land: street, city, state, and country.

               4. No-harm religion is so vital to a believer’s motivation & inspiration it should be neither                  questioned nor discussed in civic collaboration.

                5. Each believer’s practice is private, so religion cannot determine civic morality.

                6. Physics, rather than a study, is energy, mass, and space-time, from which everything                  emerges, including benefits and safety.

                7. Physics allows no-harm religious morals but is the basis for determining civic morality.

                8. Evolution, the theory of physics, competes with neither no-harm belief systems nor                  religions.

                9. Most persons want neither to govern nor to cooperate but some will collaborate for                  safety and justice.

                10. Civic morality prioritizes no-harm personal liberty and domestic goodwill (PL&DG)                    for posterity.

                11. Civic morality can be settled in blunt, emotion-free, candid talk among a people—a                    civic people.

                12. PL&DG is so attractive a people will continue to cultivate this theory for civic                    collaboration to establish safety.

It seems there is no incentive for Baton Rouge inhabitants to wait for other people to start the practice.

            Collaboration by the people who cultivated the discussions over the past two years, including my family, taught me immensely, and I am glad I did not spend that time exposing egocentricity in a book. A transcending culture—a culture of civic people--can achieve PL&DG, and it can happen rapidly—like the goodwill that existed after 9/11, except permanent for the sake of safety. Some other dualities that came from the discussion, in addition to PL&DG, include posterity and adults; personal privacy and civic collaboration; candid talk and physics-based ethics; emotions versus understanding. No one can accomplish alone the amazing consequences of civic collaboration.

            Newborns do not understand the role of civics. Cultures do not teach civic collaboration for safety. Nations that understand and work for PL&DG do not exist.  PL&DG is achievable, as humankind may learn on this, the first attempt to establish a civic people. It is starting in Baton Rouge; this is to excite you to be involved in A Civic People of Baton Rouge. Baton Rouge inhabitants may become the consultants from fifty-miles away that teach the nation and beyond.

Requesting your consideration and opinions

            To read details of the theory, please google Theory of Collaboration Of By and For a Civic People or use this URL:  promotethepreamble.blogspot.com/2015/07/theory-of-collaboration-of-by-and-for.html . If you are on the blog, go to the 7/12/15 post.

            After reluctance to speak candidly about civic issues, perhaps the most controversial part of the theory is physics-from-which-everything-emerges. Read about Albert Einstein’s idea that ethics comes from humankind’s noble work to discover, understand, and cultivate benefits from physics. Google the essay, Physics-based Ethics: Civic Examples. Or use this URL:  promotethepreamble.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-ethics-of-physics-civic-examples.html . On the blog, go to the 8/26/15 post.

            Also, find Einstein’s essay at www.samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein . Einstein’s only example is that we do not lie to each other so that we can trust our statements. I call his a soft example yet it can lessen hard consequences like death, misery, and loss. A hard analog is: We don’t run red lights so we can huba-huba through green lights. There are more controversial examples in the essay, and they need civic collaboration. However, in every case, provision of safety may mediate the debates.

            My work with Einstein’s essay hides his warmth. He seems so subtle: my interpretations since 2011 could not touch the 74 year-old message. His speech came just two years after he warned President Roosevelt that Hitler was building an atomic bomb. Perhaps that circumstance hid the depth of Einstein’s message. But in other cases, Einstein did not write enough examples to communicate with ordinary people like me. Civic collaboration has powerful goodness: participants in the EBRP library discussions and other talk either unlocked Einstein’s essay or found perhaps higher meaning Einstein did not intend.

            Whereas I attest that collaboration requires blunt, brutal expression of ideas and shameless attention to the other person’s counter-expressions without alienation, Einstein writes: “[physics’] coherent systems are not expressing emotions. . . there is only ‘being,’ but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil . . .” As you see, again I modified Einstein’s statement in order to express my understanding. The library discussions have heeded Einstein’s warmth yet developed the goal: PL&DG in safety. The hallmark is patience with each other and appreciation that collaboration will improve both person’s viewpoints. Nevertheless, some people alienate collaboration. Even collaboration is hostile to some people, and they are among We the People of the United States.

            This proposal seems complicated. It is. However, living is difficult. Just as it pays to work hard for your money, it pays to collaborate for civic morality. A person cannot cultivate her/his no-harm religious morality without civic morality. The world is in chaos because no one ever decided to establish a civic people who will collaborate for safety. Our generation can talk to each other rather than sue each other; harm each other; convince each other; govern each other; cooperate with each other: Our generation can collaborate for PL&DG.

            Borrowing Einstein’s warmth, it seems self-evident that most persons would like “to advance ethical axioms which are so comprehensive and so well founded that men will accept them as” their life unfolds.

Invitation

            Please join the practices of A Civic People of the Unites States. The initial practice will be conducted by email on the Saturday closest to the ninth of each month beginning October 10, 2015, and will consist of education and applications of the theory to current issues for email collaboration by the participants. Future library discussions for collaboration are planned to celebrate each Constitution Day (September 17) and each Ratification Day (June 21). However, a custom discussion can be planned anytime. Write to Phil Beaver at philrbeaver@gmail.com. To join or monitor the practice, request to be added to the email list.

            We are especially grateful for co-incorporators Dennis Eilers and Hugh Finklea and support from the many people who are acknowledged in the presentations.

  Copyright©2015 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised September 21, 2015.