This HAS to be mounted on the wall of a corporate executive of Diebold, somewhere... When the people are defrauded, only principles in supporting individual rights will save society.

Wasn't it Stalin who stated that it wasn't important who cast the votes, it mattered who counted them? Even if the majority is always good, it is not wise to base everything on majority rule. Why? Majorities can be defrauded; it has happened before, and it will happen again-- even within our own country. If tyrants are elected by fraud, it is important for the people to remember their foundations in principles, morals, truths, and rights. It is only by the people realizing the assumptions of individual and inalienable rights that they can fight against a government that could be elected by fraud. Germany forgot her foundations when Hitler was elected by fraud, and this paved the road for him to trample and destroy their country. There was so much unnecessary death because the people forgot their true foundations.

Where is the protection of the individual in a Democracy? When the majority votes against the individual, where is the security at law? If the majority decides what laws and rights ARE, then they can decide what they AREN'T. This violates the very premise of INALIENABLE rights. While the rule of the majority is a key to good government, there MUST be other legal/political principles, assumptions, and understandings in operation that protect the individual and minorities from the onslaught of majority oppression.

Well said, Archer.

Hitler is a great example of the break-down of Democracy! The majority is not the strongest constant to build a foundation of government on. Most sources, like the "Rise and Fall of the Thired Reich," actually place Hitler around 30%, and Hindenburg somewhere around 49%. Hitler never received the popular vote, but still won the election off fraud. The majority can be defrauded, and this is yet another reason why it is not the single greatest foundation to lay a government on. Our Republic, as I have said ad nauseum, is fundamentally built on assumptions of constant "laws of nature and of Nature's God." Regardless of whether anyone wants to take this with a Christian slant, Jewish, Buddhist, agnostic, or any other way is irrelevant. The point is, our founders tried to base our system of government on certain universal constants that would still protect the people should ever the majority be defrauded or the individual's rights trampled upon. They called this a Republic. Assuming a Hitler type personality was fraudulently elected as our president (and assuming we're still running our government as a Republic and not a damn Democracy), then the fundamental premises, philosophy, and understanding of our government (those things that differentiate it from a Democracy and make it a Republic) would prohibit our Hitler type personality from committing the atrocities of his German mentor-- regardless of popular acceptance of his actions.

Apparently von Metternich's ratio of the moral justification for raping a women or killing a child is higher than 10,000,000:1. The Hutu were around seven million to the Tutsi's approximate two and a half million... Nah, but we should really ignore history anyway, the historical carnage that comes through majority rule without exception, and create an arbitrary number to Democratically justify immoral acts. Thanks to the concept of "wikiality," we can think ANYthing we want, and if enough people believe us, then we're justifiably right-- Democracy of knowledge!! We can create our own realities, regardless of the facts--just so long as the majority agrees with us!!

The Hutu outnumbered the Tutsi by 2:1 to 4:1... Whether or not the Tutsi oppressed the Hutu before the Hutu Democratic rebellion has no bearing on and no similarities to the U.S. Republic. Every Republic is based on a different establishments and laws; the United States is based on the "laws of nature and of nature's God," by acknowledging "certain inalienable rights" that are "endowed by [our] Creator." For the minority to oppress the individual is as wrong as the majority to oppress the individual. The idealism and belief in Democracy supports the Hutu in slaughtering the Tutsi, because Democracy is pure majority rule every single time-- and the Hutu were clearly the majority. If I remember correctly, Waffler, you said that you believe in absolute majority rule ALL of time? Well, the Hutu savagery is the result of majority rule ALL of the time without exception. I have briefly looked and can find no clearer example of pure Democracy than the Hutu/Tutsi carnage in the last 100 years. The Hutu pillaged, raped, murdered, and dismembered men, women, and children and then left them there to bleed to death -- such is the legacy of Democracy. Burke actually knew his history, this quote is 100% accurate-- even in our day, as we can clearly see between the Hutu and Tutsi.

Tyrannies over the majority are wrong, as are tyrannies over the minority. Whereas Democracies protect against against Tyrannies of the minority, our Republic protects against them both. The foundations of our Republic would not allow the minority to impede upon the rights of the individual, just as it protects against the Democratic dogma to that allows the majority to impede upon the rights of the individual. The Tutsi ruling as the minority has no ties to the U.S. Republic; however, the Hutu carnage and rebelion is as perfect an example of pure Democracy that perhaps exists in the last 100 years.

Waffler, the statement "I will take a democracy in my republic every time" makes no sense... That's like saying, "I'll take my Corolla in my Accord everytime." These are two entirely separate forms of government we're discussing, with completely different foundations and premises.

Waffler, there is no greater example of pure Democracy than that Hutu/Tutsi conflict. The Hutu outnumbered the Tutsi by nearly 4-1. It was a conflict of real or imagined oppression, but this is irrelevant to Democracy. Democracy, in every collegiate textbook I've ever seen, defines Democracy as majority rule without exceptions. If you accept Democracy (for what it is, not what you want it to be), then you accept that the Hutu were justified in raping women, mutilating bodies (men, women, AND children), and in all other acts and atrocities, because the Hutu was the majority. Democracy would not have saved these people, because it was the 'mobocracy' of the majority rule that caused this shameful act to occur. This is the fundamental difference between Democracy and our Republic. Our Republic would never have let this happen, because our Republic operates according to the will of the people with exception of the infringement on the individual's inalienable rights. The main difference between our Republic and Democracy is that our Republic operates on an already assumed set of laws (Natural laws). If Democracy operates on anything other than the will of the majority all of the time, well then, it's not Democracy....

In the long run, I too trust the people-- but unlike Waffler, I don't think that it's morally justifiable to rape a women just because the attacking majority may say it's okay; I adhere to the foundations of our country that says a "Creator" gave each individual rights that cannot be usurped by the majority's rule... While I adhere to the people, I'll stand next to the women in protecting her individual rights from being raped by the majority (Republic). Waffler, you still haven't answered my question -- what's your magic number (ratio against the individual) where you say the majority finally has enough support to morally justify raping a women or killing a child? 2:1? 100:1? 100,000,000:1? If 100,000,000 people tell you its okay to rape a women, is that your magic number to drop pants and go at it? You're all about majority rule "all of the time"? What's your number? So you justify the atrocities against the Tutsi because the Hutu were in the majority, right? I recently had the distinct honor of shaking hands with Paul Rusesabagina; I am sick to think that someone in America could possibly support such a system and lifestyle that caused the great atrocities that great men like Mr. Rusesabagina went through. Sick and disgusting premise of life your Democracy, I'll tell you what...

Well, Dick Cheney ain't no John Adams now, is he?

Long live the Republic!

Adams is saying here what I've seen Mike write of. The basis of our country is that each and every individual man and women is 100% independently sovereign. Under English rule, only the King was sovereign who then dealt out rights, privileges, and license to the people who were NOT sovereign (Lords, Knights, serfs, etc.) The founders sought to make a system where all men were considered equally sovereign, just like the King-- a country of Kings, as it were. Each country has their own particular political foundations; some countries carry the facade of a Republic (in name only) like China or N. Korea, while other Republics base the foundation of their laws on different assumptions and verifying authorities than the United States. In America, after seeing the long train of human abuses throughout history, the founders sought to base THIS federalism on something that would never change, and the best thing they could find were the laws of nature (nature being the strongest constant they could find). I would give this 20 stars if I could...

What more can possibly be said?

Furthermore, if you believe it is the majority that grants rights (Democracy), at what number do you propose the majority "assumes" the rights to give to the rest? We obviously wouldn't say that 2 men can give 1 man "rights," because that's just silly (there aren't enough in the majority), because this would mean that so long as murderers outnumbered their victims by 2:1, then it would be legally justifiable --- but what about 100 people giving 99 people their rights? Not enough people to automatically assume the majority's role as a rights giver? What ratio do you propose? 100:1? 1,00:1? 10,000:1? 100,000:1? 1,00,000:1? 10,000,000? Or how about something terribly random like pi? 3.14159:1? In your democracy dogma, what magic majority number do you propose that makes it justifiable to rape a woman or to kill a child? If 100,000,000 people said it was okay to rape a woman, is it justifiable then? What's your magic number?

Waffler, the minority cannot rule the majority in either a Democracy or a Republic; just because 10 men are not allowed to rape one women because they are the majority does not infer that the one women is "ruling" over these 10 men. Democracies are majority rule, all of the time with no exceptions (the women gets raped). Republics are majority rule, most of the time, with some exceptions (the women has the ability of defending herself). Democracy has been often defined as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner -- who do you think will win? Does the exampled lamb have any rights in this scenario, or is it doomed to death? What of two men who rob and shoot another man? The two men were in the majority. Freedom, in this case, is a threatened women, lamb, and murder victim given the ability of contesting the vote. Democracies give no such protection to the women being raped, the lamb being eaten, or the man being robbed and shot. The foundation of our Republic, however, will allow the majority vote all of the time, so long as the majority does not decide to rape the women, eat the lamb, or rob and shoot the man. How can a person convalute this to possibly believe that the raped women, eaten lamb, and robbed and shot man were trying to "rule over the majority" in their seeking to protect their individual rights? How can a person convalute this to believe that the 10 men, because they are in the majority, give the women her rights? The women has rights because, based on our Declaration of Independence, her Creator gave her rights. It is her RIGHT to NOT be raped, regardless of what the majority says! The same applies for Lamb Chop and the miserable man who is now broke and has a bullet hole in his butt-- they have rights that supersede the majority.

So, Waffler, you accept gang rape, eh? Or, do you actually think a women has a right to be protected in "rights" that exist outside the scope of the raping majority?

Editor, if I may: The Constitution actually reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." The improper uses of today’s rules of capitalization were not improper for its day. Capitalized words, besides the proper persons, places, or things, were grammatically correct when emphasizing a word, phrase, or an idea. The fact that "Republican Form of Government" was all capitalized shows the founder's extended and expressed emphasis on the fact that we're a Republic (the ONLY guarantee the Constitution provides). As a second note, the only facade of a democracy granted by the Constitution is in the elections of the House of Representatives; no other officer granted by the original Constitution was to be elected by the "popular vote". The Waffler's of the world are ignorant to the fact that the "United States" is a federalist organization comprised of 50 sovereign and independent States, and that these States have agreed with each other to delegate certain sovereign powers to a supranational federalism to work in behalf of the States in very specific, limited, and direct powers (much like the EU). The Wafflers of the world do not understand that political "democracy" is merely a macrocosm of justifying 10 men to rape one women just because they are in the majority. The Wafflers of the world have no problem accepting that Germany, France, Italy, and Spain are justifiable in sending ambassadors and delegates to the federalist EU who are not directly elected by the people (which actually is the case), because the Wafflers of the world realize that these States are independently sovereign, and that these States have the ability of making daily decisions without putting every action to popular vote (representative democracy); however, what the Wafflers of the world fail to recognize is that California, Utah, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and every other State in the "United States" are as much sovereign States in their federalist alliance as Germany, France, Italy, and Spain are in EU! As I recently talked with John Bruton, the EU's American Ambassador and former prime minister of Ireland, concerning the difference between Republics and Democracies, he admitted to me that America was NOT, in fact, a democracy. He prided himself that the EU WAS a democracy, and so I asked him on what grounds the EU protected the sovereign rights of the participating State's and its citizens in lieu of the onslaught of the democratic majority. He responded that only by unanimous vote can there be any "semblance of protection" of the sovereignty of the States and the rights of the individual; otherwise, he said, France, Italy, and Spain (as the majority) could mount destructive legislation against Germany and its people on their whim... the unanimous vote, therefore, is absolutely necessary in a democracy to protect every State (Germany, for instance) and its citizens; otherwise, once again, the federalism is not a "democracy" but a "tyranny." The construct of our Constitution, he stated, would make a very poor democracy. If the citizens of Germany, Italy, France, or Spain have a problem with their State's chosen Representatives to the EU, then they vote out their local State officers that chose these ambassadors. As a further check-and-balance to these State ambassadors, the citizens also have elections to choose Representatives by the popular vote to councils of the EU. Mr. Bruton and I talked further about America's Republican form of Government wherein we concluded what makes America's Republic different than any other Republic or democracy were the presuppositions and assumptions that were imposed in the American political process. These presuppositions and assumptions were that each individual has "rights" from a "Creator" that cannot be alienated or imposed upon by the government, regardless of the majority rule. This assumption violated the rule of majorities, and, we both agreed, declassified America from being a "democracy." Waffler, you have no understanding as to how "the words... have been lived up to in history," because you have demonstrated that you have little to no understanding as to how they were originally meant in the first place. You further demonstrated that you have no understanding of political history or of political philosophy. Democracies, historically, have faltered, failed, and become tyrannical regimes within a maximum of one to two hundred years; however, Republics, as historically discussed by such men as Machiavelli have lasted for many many centuries. The "majority rule, all of the time" mentality is disgusting and is the absolute worst form of government contrived. Do not be so ignorant as to assume that democracy holds a monopoly on majority rule. Republican government ALSO rules according to the majority; however, our Republic presupposes that each individual has certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the majority. All you have to ask yourself in determining whether or not we're a democracy is simply this: Where do our rights come from? If they come from the majority, then they are not inalienable because the majority can alienate what they have given; the only way rights are inalienable is if a higher power granted them that is outside the scope, power, or will of the majority.

It's not a witch hunt if the government doesn't belong there as per the premise of our government (as opposed to other forms of government where such infiltration would be legitimate). If the government doesn't belong there then it's not a witch hunt, but a group of men who understand the proper role of government. Don't misconstrue this to mean that I support the GOP politicians because they're GOP politicians -- I have as much contempt for the GOP as I do the Democrats -- as I have said, they're symptoms of the same disease. I've supported both sides when they act to protect liberty, freedom, life, and property, and I've condemned both when they've violated these things.

Oh, and by "actual facts" I mean that, for example, Napoleon was in one place one day and then he went to another place on another day; George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States of America; Henry Ford was responsible for advancing the assembly line; etc. Basically trivia questions that you'd want to write in a 3rd grade history assignment.

The Democrats/liberals/biased media wouldn't touch this quote with a 10 ft. pole, regardless of the truthfulness of it. If they were to throw this back at the President's face, they would then open the door for responded criticism for their own actions and support of those things that specifically violate the constitution. Those who actually watch more than just FAUXNews will also know that our two-party system is very hypocritical; each side won't unearth the other's secrets if the other side agrees to not unearth their's. As soon as a liberal or a media outlet would criticize this quote they would become just as vulnerable in retaliation as though they had said it themselves. Politics is a game in trying to sort out a convoluted puzzle; if something doesn't equal x, change your variables. Waffler, I actually chose to research and learn on Lexis/Nexis, the Scholarly Journal Archive (JSTOR), Social Science Citations Index (SSCI), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), thomas.loc.gov, freedomhouse.com, the CIA World Factbook, and a host of other scholarly and scientifically peer-reviewed databases, as opposed to some bastard trash wanna-be-a-legitimate-encyclopedia-website where the local-ignorant Joe Shmoe can paste whatever he wants and any village idiot will instantly agree with it. If you start with trash, the majority of times you'll end with trash. The best possible thing to get our of Wikipedia is social-bias and actual facts and dates of historical events--that's it. Wikipedia does little to nothing more than regurgitating popular trends, and does nothing to expound upon the substance of history. Because of the nature of who actually posts on Wikipedia, even the sources are most often bias and without merit. But enough about "wikiality," this isn't a thread about the "truthiness" of Wikipedia.

There is so much information packed into this quote; Jefferson had a unique ability of speaking with brevity.

Like when the majority oppresses the rights of the minorities and the individual. There are limits to majority rule!

Yes, governments HAVE been involved in agriculture, economics, and a vast array of other things... and many times justifiably so. It's a false premise, however, to say that since something has been done in one situation that it can be done in another. If you understand the premise, history, and philosophical foundations of monarchies (for example), you'll know that Government infiltration into agriculture is very justifiable. The monarch, king, or emperor, as exemplified in England's old feudal system, Rome's Caesar, or Egypt's Pharaoh, is the only sovereign that exists. The people, in this case, were not considered to have any inalienable rights-- only what the sovereign (monarch/king/emperor) gave them. Pharaoh could then justifiably have his hands in business, agriculture, economics, and anything else he wished (when he wished), because he was the only "free" and "sovereign" entity within the kingdom and everyone else that existed within his stated boundaries were subjects/slaves/serfs to him and his will (remember, "Joseph SERVED in Pharaoh's court"-- although he was second in command to everything Pharaoh had, he wasn't a free man--Pharaoh was still the sovereign). In the United States, however, "We the People" are all individually sovereign, because we acknowledge that we "are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" that are ours regardless of what any other power says; otherwise, these rights are ALIENABLE. In OUR system of government, because the people are the sovereign entities that aren■t ruled over by kings/monarchs/emperors/pharaohs/etc., the government doesn't have the same justifiable and legitimate ability to infiltrate business, agriculture, or many of the things that the despots of old have justifiably been able to do. So, while government infiltration into society is as "old as the hills," that doesn't mean that it is justifiable for it to continue under our current system of government; different premise of operation, remember? (that is, unless you think we're a monarchy) If we were to use Waffler's logic and say that since governments HAVE done something that we are justified to repeat them, then we'd be subject to the Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts, and mass murders at the whim of the government... Sorry, I don't think so. Try to come up with a more firm foundation for argument next time.