What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In Opinion
- Save the Colorado River
- In our opinion: Editorial: A football playoff
- Letter: The question of morality in gay...
- Letter: Help individuals, but stop...
- What others say: The winners and the losers
- Letter: Two junior senators would spell...
- Revolutions challenge the human condition
- Letter: Middle class workers are real job...
Most Commented
Across Site
In Opinion
- My view: Adjusting the definition of...
54 - Letter: Job creation should be a top...
41 - Letter: Health and health care
36 - Letter: Remember, Howell is still in...
33 - Letter: The question of morality in gay...
33 - Letter: Help individuals, but stop...
28 - Letter: Hatch is an ace
27 - Letter: Enough class warfare
26






Thank you for your thoughtful explanation, Senator. But there is one instance where an initiative is valuable; when state legislators ignore the will of the citizens of the state, and implement legislation that is contrary to the popular will. California may be an extreme example, but initiatives can be a valuable tool, especially in a state where a one-party system has run amuck.
Excellent analysis.
Good article former Senator Bennett.
I hope Kirk Jowers reads this. He is fighting, I hope, a loosing battle against a republic form of government and wants us to be more like California.
I think another key difference is that in a republic, the rule of law is supreme. In a pure democracy, it's the will of the people. In a democracy, the majority can vote to take away rights and privileges from minorities, where in a republic the rights of the individual are held inviolate.
A quibble with Richard Saunders. The supremacy of the rule of law is not inherent in a republic. Elected representatives can be just as malicious as the mass of the people. The legal protection of the American people is based in our having a constitution, not in the form of government.
"In a pure democracy, it's the will of the people. In a democracy, the majority can vote to take away rights and privileges from minorities, where in a republic the rights of the individual are held inviolate."
I agree.
Speaking of the majority voting away rights and privileges from minorities and a republic's constitutional protections against this kind of tyranny...
Prop 8?
He said it's easier for a group to distort a democracy than a republic? Not heard of lobbying? I think it's easier to grease a palm than convince 10 million to go along with any idea.
The real problem is that the people are not taking thier voting as seriously as they should making sure what they vote for is constitutional. Prop 8 obviously does not adhere to the contitution nor it's spirit yet some were tripping over themselves to force it through based only on thier religious views.
Why should we think a represenative from us would vote constitutionally? Red and Blue are both unhappy about the lack of constitutionality comming from the other side and give a pass to thier team. Perhaps we just need to follow George Washinton's advice that political parties ARE the problem.
When I hear a "represenative" type telling me that I need one like him to make decisions for me, I'm not impressed. Go democracy.
Educators have to have a big seminar to inform themselves on the US Constitution?
So, who has been teaching that to our kids up to now?
California voters pass initiatives that require the government to spend money. Then they pass other initiatives lowering their taxes. You can't have it both ways.
Do we really need to have an article published every week discussing this issue?
Lets focus on things that actually matter, where are the new jobs that the new repubs promised? I thought the GOP was going to concentrate on the economy? Sooooooooooooo what are their plans?
NO to everything still?
To "Blue | 8:11 a.m." what rights were voted away with proposition 8? A gay person can still get married (per the DOMA definition) to a person of the opposite sex, so that has not been denied.
Please tell us what "right" has been denied. Also, tell us where that "right" has been defined.
@Screwdriver 8:29
No one is claiming that electing representatives will guarantee good laws, but electing hopefully the best among us is better than just putting it out to the masses who let TV and movie stars sway them. A constitutional republic is better than a democracy by far.
Senator Bennett, this is a great article. The delegates that voted you out are examples of the uneducated masses, bullies in the party caucuses that do not represent the people. We lost one of the best in Congress when we lost you. Either we need to step up in the party caucuses or get rid of them.
@CNS
Sorry, I meant to put in a Constitutional-republic. I agree that we are not protected as individuals because people represent us, but because they are (supposedly) bound by a Constitution that we hold to be the supreme law of the land.
The Utah caucus/nominating convention process is the best example of the republic form of government we have in America. Loving Bennett's analysis in this article and advocating abandoning the caucus are mutually exclusive positions.
"A republic is a state (or group) where governmental power resides in people who have been chosen out of the group. The United States of America is one; power is given to members of Congress and the president. The People's Republic of China is one, too; power is given to members of the Politburo and its officers. Most countries operate this way.
But there are very clear differences. In America, those who hold power are chosen by an elective process in which every citizen over the age of 18 can participate. In China, those who hold power are chosen by officials of the Chinese Communist party."
Like Bob Bennett, many people believe that because we vote. voters have power. In fact the only candidates we have to consider are from one party. The conservative commercialist party where all members are representatives of business interests.
This is the difference between a republic and a democracy, equal Justice for all. There's some cases where Republicans fail to appreciate the ferocity with which a mamma grizzly protects her young and make more regulations about it. We know that Anthony, 25, is charged in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. The judge in the Casey Anthony trial ruled her mentally competent to proceed this morning after ordering three evaluations of her over the weekend. The competency motion was made by the defense. The judge ordered evaluations by three psychologists that took place Saturday and Sunday. Perry ordered that the reports from the evaluations be sealed. Meantime, the defense reportedly filed a motion for mistrial this morning based partly on a decision on death-penalty cases last week by a federal judge in Miami. However, the Orlando Sentinel reported that no such motion had been filed with the clerk's office. The ruling on Anthony's competency comes after Perry abruptly halted proceedings Saturday morning with no witnesses called. He cited a "legal matter." Anthony has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and could face the death penalty if convicted of that charge. ONLY IN AMERICA.
Asking Bennett about the definition of a republic is like asking a Tiger not to eat the dinner it just killed.
@Anti-Bush-Obama,
Then please enlighten us. If you do not like Bennett's definition, what is your definition of a Republic?
So what exactly will be taught?
Constitutional republic as defined in a dictionary ? (several different definitions depending on the dictionary)
Constitutional republic as intended by the framers ? (they did not all necessarily agree)
Constitutional republic as it might mean after 200-plus years of case law ?
Constitutional republic as actually practiced by our Lords and Masters in Washington ?
Amen, Mr. Bennett.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments