The Constitution of the United States. Can section 4 article 4 be simplified?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: CopeLongCut
Maybe I'm wrong but, I took your OP to be about the phrase "republican form of government" meaning something specific. That isn't necessarily the case.

I'm sure the FF of the US put a lot of thought into things but all the things they included; the constitution as supreme law, the BOR and the process to make amendments, the division of powers to constrain the power of government, are not what makes the the US a republic.

I was talking about 4, 4. You keep talking about democracy. When it specifically guarantees each state a Republic.

a reply to: murphy22
Words have different definitions in the US because you need to be protected from yourselves?

That sounds kind of sad.

a reply to: CopeLongCut

And I am discussing what a Republic actually is and how it can be, and in many states it actually is, direct democracy because republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

I agree. A Republic and a Democracy are not mutually exclusive. In our Constitution. We are guaranteed a Republic.As in 4,4. I am not sure where you keep getting a democracy from? a reply to: daskakik

a reply to: CopeLongCut
A democracy is a republic so being guaranteed a republic doesn't mean you can't get a democracy.

originally posted by: CopeLongCut
The Constitution of the United States. Can it be simplified?

As a whole. The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. A Union of States. Each State having their own Constitution. Guaranteed by The US Constitution in Article 4 section 4 of our Constitution. "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."

Pretend you just saw this for the first time. The first thought that comes to mind. Write a response.

No. Amended, re-phrased, re-interated....yes.

Simplified from the Founders intent? No.

originally posted by: Dalamax

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CopeLongCut
A was curious about responses on section 4 article 4. Thank you for your response though.. reply to: chr0naut

I think that government should not be about legal control, but about individual rights and freedoms. It is where a Constitution comes in, as a baseline to protect those rights and freedoms.

Clearly you cannot allow the anarchy of 'every man for themselves' and 'everyone does what they want', but you need to have something that is not repressive, either. This is where a Constitutional document shines.

In 4, 4. The presumption that a Republican form of government is optimal is not historically the case. The Nazi government fell out of the Weimar Republic. Ancient Rome was a republic and there are a number of 'republics' around the world that are sub par and treat their peoples inhumanely and/or have goverened poorly.

Clearly 4, 4, says that it is to protect them against domestic violence by the Executive but there have been actions of the Executive branch and even the President that have resulted in direct violence against citizens (such as the Bonus War, Waco raid and similar).

It is clear that 4, 4 is written very poorly for a piece of 'legalese' and is very fuzzy in meaning. It has run-on sentences with comma's and semicolons all over the place. You have to read and re-read it to try and understand what it is on about.

But I am a foreigner, so you may, if you wish, ignore anything I say.

What do you think of this guy?
youtu.be...

Does a court have any authority to grant copyright on something in the public domain in the first place? Surely copyright can only be assigned elsewhere by the existing owner or originator of a work.