An article in today’s Journal News suggests that the arguments in Albany about the East Ramapo School Board revolve around the question as to whether State Intervention in appointing a monitor would be a ‘unique circumstance’ or a ‘dangerous precedent’.
One Albany idiot opined: “They keep saying East Ramapo is unique. And I agree, but… we have to be very careful,” Senate Education Committee chairman John Flanagan, R-Nassau County, told Gannett’s Albany Bureau. “I think members are very circumspect about saying, ‘OK, if you’re doing this in East Ramapo, this could happen in the districts I represent.'” He added, “Legislation, particularly given the nature of what’s being asked, should probably be the last resort.”
Flanagan may properly be referred to as an ‘idiot’. You see he first agrees that the situation in East Ramapo is “unique” and then goes on to argue from the premise that the situation is not ‘unique’. With a situation that is ‘unique’ there are no degrees of ‘uniqueness’. ‘Unique’ implies a single situation with no parallel. Furthermore, Flanagan appears not to understand that what is being asked from the legislators in Albany is the last resort as well as being ‘unique’.
Do politicians understand the difference between a pure Democracy and a Republic when statements such as the following are made?
“I would hope that these concerns could be addressed at the local level. One of the things I’ve said, which has annoyed some of the people down there is: If you don’t like the way things are going, run your own slate of candidates.”
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding of the form of government practiced in the United States.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between:
(a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and
(b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority
The United States is a Republic. It is governed by rule of law. The elected are bound by oath to written governing limits (i.e. constitution) yet vote “together” and create laws to address concerns of the represented in a democratic way.
Do those who corruptly line their own pockets while not solving any of our problems not understand that the key difference between a pure Democracy and a Republic lies in the limits placed on government by the laws of a Republic which protect minority rights? Both forms of government use a ‘representational system’ where citizens vote to elect politicians to ‘represent’ their interests and form the government. However, in a Republic, a constitution protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters.
In a pure Democracy the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority. In a pure Democracy rule is by the omnipotent majority in which any minority has no protection against the power of the majority.
Do the idiots in Albany not understand the form of the government within which they operate? They appear confused about the difference between two distinctly different forms of government and seem not to realize which form of government it is that all of our citizens enjoy in the United States.
The danger here is not in Albany “setting a dangerous precedent“. The danger lies in the fact that when our government fails in its obligation to protect ‘inalienable rights’ as provided for in our constitution the end result – as we have repeatedly learned from our past history – is always violence by the unrepresented minority towards the overriding majority.
For Albany – and more importantly for Rockland – time is running out on the option of a constitutional solution to this unique situation concerning the education of minority children in East Ramapo.