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

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.



Starting a New Thread ?



IMPORTANT: New (old) Standards Are Being Enforced (again) For New Threads

a reply to: CopeLongCut

Too many dependent clauses. Like this one. And that one.

How would you rephrase it? Honestly asking. Thank you.a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

a reply to: CopeLongCut

I see a democratic form of gov. nowhere mentioned and therefore
should be deemed an invading intrusive different form of govt. One
that would serve as vehicle to overthrow the republic a little further
every time it took office. At least until it was close to being exposed.
At which point it would look to seize total power by any means at it's
disposal. Like right now.

To "dumb" it down, even more?

I would like to think and believe, the average "educated" American, can understand (comprehend) simple writing of a, "law".

yep, I bet the writers chose their words deliberately...note the OP starts with.... as a whole.....

originally posted by: murphy22
To "dumb" it down, even more?

I would like to think and believe, the average "educated" American, can understand (comprehend) simple writing of a, "law".

originally posted by: CopeLongCut
The Constitution of the United States. Can if 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.

Firstly, the US Constitution really includes the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. A full Constitutional document should have the intent and beautiful prose in them retained and supported.

The draft new Constitution should include statements of guiding ethics as well as law. Perhaps under separate headings, but by no means a disposable part of the document. It should be an integrated whole.

Perhaps, then, include all the individual states constitutional clauses in the one rough draft document, and then sort them by similarity. The goal of this is to produce a single constitution agreeable for all American states. Where possible, similar clauses could be combined in such a way as to retain the operable intent from all contributory clauses.

Then if there are any clauses that cannot be equitably resolved, then those become separate state-by-state amendments, under the governance of the particular state involved. There needs to be a clause that defines where these state documents reside, who and how they are handled, and also the rights of states individually.

Then other great documents of rights of citizens and law, like the UN Declaration of Human Rights and sections of British Common Law, not already in the draft Constitution could be integrated.

Then the next phase would be to render each clause of the new document so that there can be no interpretation contrary to the intent of each the clause.

Then a review to ensure that the clauses are not contradictory and all parts of the document cohere.

Then a review to ensure that there are no clauses contrary to existing case law and, where a conflict arises, there needs to be a process of adjudication by the supreme court, or by referendum as applicable (or both).

Lastly, there are contentious clauses even in the current Constitution. These are to be handled with great care so as to not break the Constitution, but to keep its intent pristine. It is these contentious clauses that will take the greatest effort and time to resolve.

Then there needs to be a cutover process that enacts the new Constitution.

Perhaps if people took the process seriously enough, there would be great participation and far less riot and protest if there was a clear path to a better future.

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

a reply to: carsforkids

A "Democratic" government, is the big lie!

The only thing "Democratic" about our government is how we "elect" our "representatives". And then? They're supposed to "uphold and defend" the "law". Which is the C.O.T.U.S.. By oath!

"Democracy" is not, never was, the intentions of our founders.

To insure "each state" a "Republican form of government".

I'll dumb it down. "To insure each state a set of STANDARDS of law".

The problem with "Dems" and "progressives"? They think standards can change, based on how lazy they physically and emotionally 'feel".

They're intellectual cowards.

a reply to: chr0naut

What you are describing is what has supposed to been all along.

Which I would believe is what Franklin meant, and was credited with saying, .. "A Republic. If you can keep it."

a reply to: murphy22

The only thing "Democratic" about our government is how we "elect" our "representatives". And then? They're supposed to "uphold and defend" the "law". Which is the C.O.T.U.S.. By oath!

Unfortunately damn near all of DC now ignores this truth.
Which adds up to what we have right now. The last gasps
of a people trying to hold on to what they have left thru
the current POTUS. If he fails the hammer falls.

a reply to: carsforkids

I don't vote for a "leader". I don't personally need to be lead. I vote for who can best represent me.
At this point in history? Pres. Trump is my guy.

If nothing ever happens in Washington D.C.? I figure that's a good day.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: carsforkids

I don't vote for a "leader". I don't personally need to be lead. I vote for who can best represent me.

I agree.

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.

I do not make it a habit to ignore opinions. I may not agree but do take your words into consideration. a reply to: chr0naut

a reply to: chr0naut

You are correct.

Art. 4. was written for and during a time, of well established STANDARDS. Which is what "laws" are.

There's nothing "fuzzy" about it. ..Only, maybe to a "lawyer" that doesn't go to prison for "practicing law" and failing. Or to a "politician" that swares an oath to uphold it? Then at first chance, tries to change/repeal it?

a reply to: CopeLongCut
In it's purest form "Republic" just means a form of government that is a public matter.

Republic, from collinsdictionary.com

A republic is a country where power is held by the people or the representatives that they elect. Republics have presidents who are elected, rather than kings or queens.

Republic and Democratic are not mutually exclusive and many state constitutions allow processes that permit direct democracy through initiatives and referendums. 27 states and DC according to Wiki

Curious what Blacks Law Dictionary says brb.a reply to: daskakik

a reply to: murphy22

No man needs a personal leader.
Countries need a good leader.
POTUS has barely had a chance to lead.
But he is a good leader. The democrats need
to be cut away before they send us to ruin.
Like a cancerous spewing melanoma.

REPUBLIC republic,n. A system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who exercise that power. • It contrasts on the one hand with a pure democracy, in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign power of government, and on the other with the rule of one person (such as a king or dictator) or of an elite group (such as an oligarchy, aristocracy, or junta).

Sourced from Blacks Law Dictionary