Very scary! Hopefully this will get overturned quickly.

BREAKING: Judge Cannon Dismisses Trump Classified Documents Case. (I wish I was surprised)

I posted this in reply to a comment a few minutes ago, but I think it's something more people need to understand

"[True] democracy doesn't mean you cannot have representation. Democracy doesn't have to be direct to be true democracy. The only problem is that even the most esteemed scholars have fumbled with the word "representation."

This is why I explained in one of the comments on a post I made, that even some of our biggest problems come from simple vocabulary errors.

There is a difference between "Represent the interests of the people" and "Represent the people."

As simple as it sounds. As pedantic as it may sound. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE, which results in BIG PROBLEMS.

Most scholars (including the Founders of US) have tried to argue the former (represent the interests of the people). But that is impossible. So in furthering the idea that congresspeople would "represent the interests of the people" we TRANSFER power, we RELINQUISH power completely to them. THIS is exactly when u lose democracy and this is where we have a "republic." Because power is no more with the people. Power is now granted and held wholly by the few. We do not control them. They are now kings. But it is assumed that they represent our collective interests (they speak for our interests, whether it is true or not). This is a very nuanced thing, I know it won't make sense to a lot.

But when you say "represent the people" that's different. That means the person is merely an employee. You do not transfer power to them per se. You only give them permission to speak for u, but power remains with the people and they control the representive.

A good example is a lawyer. Your lawyer represents u. So they may advice u, they speak for u, but ultimately u decide. They can never plea something u don't agree with and u can fire them anytime. Even a linquist is a representative. A proxy at a meeting is a representative. Imagine a CEO picks someone to represent him at a meeting while he plays golf. Do u think the representative can assume power from the CEO and do as they please? No! The CEO is still in charge.

But even back to the lawyer scenario. If we said the lawyer represents ur interests, then when they speak for u, they are in control. They decide for u whether u like or not. Another example is parents. Parents represent the interests of their children. They decide for them, whether they like or not, they represent their interests, they don't represent the kids (like an employee).

See how we use simple words can make a HUGE difference. This in turn turns into institutional problems, as it defines our limitations, and then BIGGER BIGGER problems."

If you want to have a better understanding of these issues and more, the book "The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century" explains them in better detail; if you can't get it, find "The Future of Governance" on Facebook or LinkedIn and learn from and engage with their posts. A lot of present literature and scholarship on these matters are flawed on far too many fundamental concepts.

Today most scholars and resources argue that a "republic" (as defined by Madison and co, and as understood by the constitution) is the same as "representative democracy." But this is wrong.

The two are fundamentally different, in that, the former transfers unfettered power to THE FEW to rule, while the latter retains power with THE PEOPLE even while they employ others to speak for them as and how they direct them to (at all times under their control and at their mercy). It shifts the balance of power.