A REPUBLIC?

The United States Constitution has more questions in it than it does answers. And it has more "self-interested", than "patriotic" answerers to these questions, that is if they are brought to the light of the analytical patriotic mind and spirit.

Some of the ones that are most worrisome (I offer here free guidelines of mine) "should be" those things that are said too much, said too little, or said in ways that we have not looked into carefully enough. One said too little that is quite a big thing is "Republic". It appears in only one place:

In Article IV, Section4, para 1 (and I add 2 for fun) it says:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.

So far as I can tell if we ever were, the States are no longer a true Republic. But as Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said, "Those who would trade a little liberty, for a little safety, deserve neither", or words to that effect. It's very precient that the second paragraph promises protection for each of the"parts of the Republic" from invasion. I want it to read "protect the Republic and its Constitution from all invasions, both foreign and domestic." I guess we traded the Republic for the Dept. of Homeland Security, and foreign "wars by resolution", without the Constitutional "due process Congressional Declarations of War! So, we got what we let us be given, right? Let's give it back and get the original!

I want only a Republic, it's what I paid for: but, I don't have it! So Non-Constitutional is also Non-Republic! (Come on you word pundit type guys, say it another more modernly relevant extended way!) Seems to me there is a lot in this "few little words" business that strikes at the "principles" of the Republic of the United States of America

Another is the many ways that these sometimes "few little words" are written, such as defense, is in two or four or perhaps more ways as, (or my should be"s):

1. defence
2. Defence
3. common defence
4. common Defence
5. Common Defence
6. Common Commons Defence

The lawyer mind with its great concern for long sentences, multiple polysyllabic phrases, and number and positioning of commas, has rather arbitrarily changed all forms of "defence" into "defense" and noted nothing at all about a difference between Defense and defense and common Defense, et al. Mine makes the latter not only the street English "defense of us all", but also "Defense of al the Commons". Why are these things not brought out more fully? I know not; but, I know whence they will take us commonly. Me thinks I don't want to go any further that-a-way! And I doth not protest too much!

Another worrisome little word is Independence. Did we not begin with the Declaration of Indepdndence and its principle, and should they not be included in "Constitutionality? At present, it appears only once in the "writings on the Constitution's paper". (One problem is that the Constitution has no clear end delimiting its meat from commentary.) Thus Independence is "kindof" included into the "Constitution" by constitutional convention secretary Jackson who added the following note to the "Constitution":

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G°. Washington . . .