Michael LeMieux – A Federalist – A Republic

A FEDERALIST - A REPUBLIC

By Michael LeMieux
March 9, 2010
http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael116.htm

Before we delve into this, let’s establish a basis in definition:

• Federal (as described in Blacks Law Dictionary Seventh Edition) is: “Of or relating to a
system of associated governments with a vertical division of governments into national and
regional components having different responsibilities; esp., of or relating to the national
government of the United States.”

• Republic (Blacks Law Dictionary Seventh Edition) is: “A system of government in which the
people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who exercise that power.”

• Democracy literally means "rule by the people” or rule of the majority. Blacks Law
Dictionary, Seventh Edition, describes democracy as: “Government by the people, either
directly or through representatives.”

We hear from our elected leaders, nearly on a daily basis, their support for democracy, how
they wish to spread democracy, or support the growth of democracy to other nations. In fact,
and in operation, republics and democracies are antithetic to each other. Republics operate
under the rule of law, democracies rule under the operation of law (mob rule). 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
death.”

From the creation of our republic, the only democratic mechanism was how we chose our
leaders. Over time we have slowly slipped into legislation by polling where those who desire
political power care only to get elected or reelected and to maintain the status quo. We are
now more a social democracy than we are a republic. The social democracy rules by what the
majority want and can be swayed by fad and political manipulation. Regardless of how you
look at democracy it is a collectivist view (what is best for the whole) even at the peril of the
minority. Whereas a republic, under the rule of law, protects the minority from the majority.

A pure democracy is one in which the majority rules. Everyone in town votes to build a new
park. That sounds good, and everyone can benefit from it. But wait! What if they want to take
your house and land to build the new park? Now it’s the whole town voting for the new park
and just you voting against it. In a democracy you lose, end of story.

In a republic, we operate under the rule of law that protects the minority from the majority.
For most things, under our democratically elected representatives, the majority vote for laws.

Page 1 of 4
Michael LeMieux – A Federalist – A Republic

The main difference is there are certain things that cannot be done away with, period. In our
system those things are enclosed within the Constitution and more specifically the bill of
rights, which tells the government you may go this far and no further. This is the line in the
sand that you cannot cross. In this way, regardless of what the majority wants, the rights of
ALL are equally protected. The function of the Bill of Rights is to enumerate a minimum set of
rights against which the government cannot trespass.

You will notice that nowhere in the Constitution is the word democracy used; however Article
4, Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government…” The writers wanted to ensure that the destructive and
factious Democracy would not get a foothold in our government.

Throughout the Constitution there is a balance between the collectivist and the individualist
position. The Collectivist view, simply stated, is that the government can have a free reign in
what it does as long as it can be shown that it is for the greater good of the country. The
individualist view, by contrast, defends the minority from the whim of the majority.

Another major difference between the collectivist and individualist is that of personal
responsibility. The collectivist believes that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the
one. They believe there is some responsibility to provide to those who have not, what I call the
Robin Hood syndrome. The individualist, on the other hand, believes a man is responsible for
his or her own choices, and should be held responsible for those choices. The problem comes
with enactment. I may personally give thousands of dollars each year to charity; but however,
I reserve the right to not give should my personal circumstances change. Who is best to
determine these circumstances other than myself? However, if I am not given a choice as to
who I will support by my labor and earnings then I am being forced into mandated welfare,
and back to a collectivist view of government.

Mandated welfare from the state is legalized thievery, nothing less. The individualist will
argue, “What right do you have to take what I have worked so hard to obtain to give to
someone who does not work for it?” The collectivist will argue that we are all a part of the
whole and by strengthening the weakest part, the whole is made better. I would argue that
this is debatable. Any system that rewards failure, idleness, or poor choices in life, will have
little incentive to correct it. To have a government provide health care, food, housing,
education etc. to a sector of the population other than those who have worked to earn it,
builds resentment by both parties. Those who have worked for what they have will look down
on others who have received the benefit without working for it. The recipient of the
government handout will not value what he has been given because he did not earn it. The
public housing schemes in our major cities are proof of this. Individually owned houses, built
during the same timeframe as welfare housing, are still in great shape and have increased in
value, while the welfare housing is scheduled for demolition. Why is that? Could it possibly be
that the tenants of the welfare housing do not care for the property, because it is not theirs?
They did not pay for it, and they are not going to spend their money on something they do not
own or pay for. It is common human nature, and no amount of welfare is going to change
that.

My career has allowed me the opportunity to live many years overseas under various political
structures. While living in Scotland, a beautiful country with fantastic people, I had the

Page 2 of 4
Michael LeMieux – A Federalist – A Republic

opportunity to know many people who lived on the dole (state welfare) which provided food,
housing, money, and utilities.

Many of these people had been receiving these entitlements for years and when asked why
they were on it for so long responded that when they factor in child care, transportation costs,
the cost of getting into a new flat (apartment which was probably sub standard the
government housing), their standard of living would decrease. But this is the collective
mindset to provide the basic necessities of society to those who do not earn it on the backs of
those that do. By doing so we do not only lift up the poor in society we bring down the
producers and end up creating a segment of society that finds it much easier to live on the
graces of society than it is to overcome the burdens. Thus creating a class within our society
that will always vote for the status quo so as to not jeopardize that which is provided for them.

One item of the balance of power in our system of government that was designed into the
Constitution was that of representation. Within the Congress we have two houses; the House
of Representatives and the Senate. This system allowed for the representation of the People
(the House) and the state (the Senate).

Originally the Senate members were appointed by the state legislatures to represent the state.
In 1913, the same year that gave us the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax, the Constitution
was amended, by the 18th Amendment, to change state representation to that of a popular
vote.
Now instead of the states being represented by THEIR representatives the people of the state,
in a popular election, choose the senators thus expanding the people’s representation and
eliminating the states representation.

Now the collectivist will point out that the state is represented because the only people voting
are citizens of the state but that is exactly what the House of Representatives is for NOT the
Senate. By removing the state’s ability to appoint their own representatives they now loose
the ability to recall that representative should they decide to vote contrary to the desire of the
state and places them more under party control rather than the state.

Once placed in office under the current voting scheme the senator becomes beholden to the
party and that parties war chest for reelection rather than to the state as an appointed
representative. This again provides more power to the federal machine and removes power
from the states where it was originally intended.

So now that the state is virtually without representation, as they have no sway over how the
Senators vote, the taxes placed on the state are done so without proper representation. The
congressional power has thus slipped a degree from republic to democracy and inch by inch
the central power grows stronger and more aloof from those it supposedly represents.

Speaking specifically of congressional authority, as stated in Article 1 Section 8, there are

numerous examples where the congress has either given up its constitutional responsibilities
or has passed laws that have stepped outside the bounds of its authority. In some cases,
amendments to bills have been tacked on to unrelated legislation or have simply been unread
by the body of the legislature. In either case they were either complicit in their actions or
negligent in their duties by voting for laws they have not read. We have heard many times

Page 3 of 4
Michael LeMieux – A Federalist – A Republic

how ignorance of the law is no excuse, or more correctly, is no defense. Why is it that those
that create the law are not required to know the laws they vote upon?

With the massive attempts of expanding the federal government taking place today, the
enormous size of the bills being passed, or trying to get passed, and the arrogance of those in
power to want to pass these bills without being read is criminal. These men and women swore
and oath to protect and defend the Constitution; so how, pray tell, can they uphold that oath
if they are attempting to pass bills they have not read or know whether or not what they are
passing is constitutional?

Ronald Reagan once said, “…man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear
cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government
expands, liberty contracts.” The more government expands its powers into our daily lives the
less real freedom we will have.

Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US
Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence
disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group,
while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He
served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries
received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with
over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence
contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the

original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the
republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those
who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind
and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed
far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the
American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and
the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now
has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals
right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the
Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan,
Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia,
Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and
grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and
scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com

Page 4 of 4