Democracy or Republic?

With impeachment talk saturating the political air of the States, we are hearing some interesting comments from those who count themselves as devoted to a republican form of government.  Mr Bryan Fischer is one of these.  Lately, he has been saying that since it takes 2/3 of federal senators to convict a sitting president, and since far fewer than 2/3 of the American voting populace as a whole does not support impeachment, that such an action has no chance of happening.  However, this sort of argument has nothing to do with republicanism; it is the sort of argument one would use under a democratic form of government. 

One of the things that marks republican institutions as republican is that, after elections, they are largely insulated from the influence of the masses in their day-to-day operations.  To make elected representatives nothing but puppets of the will of the majority of their constituents at any one moment is to have a republic in name only.  What you’ve really got is direct democracy dressed up in a rather cumbersome costume as a republic.

Are Mr Fischer et al. willing to trust in the republican principles they proclaim when it comes to impeachment, to judges, etc.; to trust in the working of the republican institutions as laid out in the Philadelphia Constitution?  Or will they put them aside, turn to democracy, and use the brute force of a simple numerical majority to force elected officials in Washington City to bend to their will?  In other words, are they willing to destroy republicanism in order to save it (a revolutionary slogan if ever there were one)? 

In actuality, they needn’t worry too much over their answer.  Pres Lincoln already eviscerated the original understanding of the Philadelphia Constitution with his War against the South.  They will only be fulfilling the work he began in 1861 if they opt for the latter.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!