# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Permissible State Governments under the U.S. Constitution....

## Snowball

I'm not as mentally sharp in the summer, it's a fact. So, rather than try to pry this information out of my obstinately uncooperative head today, I'm here to ask you guys. Chime in. 

Questions: 

1) What forms of government are legally permissible for States, under the U.S. Constitution ? 
2) In the situation of a lack of clean definition, and certainly of lacking precedent, would there have to be a Constitutional Convention called if a number of states vehemently objected to the chosen form of government in, say, New Hampshire, to toss it out of the Union? 

This assumes the legality of the change within the presupposed State.

----------


## Swordsmyth

A4
*Section 4*The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

The first clause of this section, in somewhat different language, was contained in the Virginia Plan introduced in the Convention and was obviously attributable to Madison. 321 Through the various permutations into its final form, 322 the object of the clause seems clearly to have been more than an authorization for the Federal Government to protect States against foreign invasion or internal insurrection, 323 a power seemingly already conferred in any case. 324 No one can now resurrect the full meaning of the clause and intent which moved the Framers to adopt it, but with the exception of the reliance for a brief period during Reconstruction the authority contained within the confines of the clause has been largely unexplored. 325  

[Footnote 321] ''Resd. that a Republican government . . . ought to be guaranteed by the United States to each state.'' 1 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 22. In a letter in April, 1787, to Randolph, who formally presented the Virginia Plan to the Convention, Madison had suggested that ''an article ought to be inserted expressly guaranteeing the tranquility of the states against internal as well as external danger. . . . Unless the Union be organized efficiently on republican principles innovations of a much more objectionable form may be obtruded.'' 2 Writings of James Madison, G. Hunt ed. (New York: 1900), 336. On the background of the clause, see W. Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Ithaca: 1972), ch. 1.

[Footnote 322] Thus, on June 11, the language of the provision was on Madison's motion changed to: ''Resolved that a republican constitution and its existing laws ought to be guaranteed to each state by the United States.'' 1 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 193-194, 206. Then, on July 18, Gouverneur Morris objected to this language on the ground that ''[h]e should be very unwilling that such laws as exist in R. Island ought to be guaranteed to each State of the Union.'' 2 id., 47. Madison then suggested language ''that the Constitutional authority of the States shall be guaranteed to them respectively against domestic as well as foreign violence,'' whereas Randolph wanted to add to this the language ''and that no State be at liberty to form any other than a Republican Govt.'' Wilson then moved, ''as a better expression of the idea,'' almost the present language of the section, which was adopted. Id., 47- 49.

[Footnote 323] Thus, Randolph on June 11, supporting Madison's version pending then, said that ''a republican government must be the basis of our national union; and no state in it ought to have it in their power to change its government into a monarchy.'' 1 id., 206. Again, on July 18, when Wilson and Mason indicated their understanding that the object of the proposal was ''merely'' to protect States against violence, Randolph asserted: ''The Resoln. has 2 Objects. 1. to secure Republican government. 2. to suppress domestic commotions. He urged the necessity of both these provisions.'' 2 id., 47. Following speakers alluded to the dangers of monarchy being created peacefully as necessitating the provision. Id., 48. See W. Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Ithaca: 1972), ch. 2.

[Footnote 324] See Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 15.

[Footnote 325] See generally W. Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Ithaca: 1972).


https://constitution.findlaw.com/art...ation18.html#2

----------


## Invisible Man

> I'm not as mentally sharp in the summer, it's a fact. So, rather than try to pry this information out of my obstinately uncooperative head today, I'm here to ask you guys. Chime in. 
> 
> Questions: 
> 
> 1) What forms of government are legally permissible for States, under the U.S. Constitution ? 
> 2) In the situation of a lack of clean definition, and certainly of lacking precedent, would there have to be a Constitutional Convention called if a number of states vehemently objected to the chosen form of government in, say, New Hampshire, to toss it out of the Union? 
> 
> This assumes the legality of the change within the presupposed State.


Tossing it out of the Union may be one conceivable way of ensuring that no states in the Union are lacking "a republican form of government." But that's not what would happen. What would happen, if any state dared to rebel against the feds that way, would be military action installing "a republican form of government" (as defined by the regime in Washington, DC, of course), along the same lines of what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, or like when a state government has to take over a local school board that fails to meet the state's requirements.

----------


## Snowball

> Tossing it out of the Union may be one conceivable way of ensuring that no states in the Union are lacking "a republican form of government." But that's not what would happen. What would happen, if any state dared to rebel against the feds that way, would be military action installing "a republican form of government" (as defined by the regime in Washington, DC, of course), along the same lines of what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, or like when a state government has to take over a local school board that fails to meet the state's requirements.


_Section 4.

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. 
_
It would seem that the provision of Article IV, Section 4 was meant to protect the States against insurrection by violent means domestically, and/or foreign invasion. The "guarantee" presupposes a State requiring assistance to maintain its form of government. This would not apply if the State voluntarily and constitutionally (according to its own constitution), altered its form of government peaceably. 

Without even delving into the possibilities of a "form of government" that is not "republican", which may be argued is not a requirement, or conditional demand, but rather is a guarantee or promise, that IF an "application of the legislature", or "of the executive" takes place, AS A REQUEST, the Federal institution would intervene forcibly. However, what if no such "application" takes place, and no insurrection or invasion occurs ? 

That would apply even to a non-republican form of government, _because there is no mandate or requirement_ that a "Republican Form of Government" is necessary to maintain inclusion in the Union.  Now, let's also consider the many variations possible within the definition of a "Republican Form of Government"; for example, the Governor might not be elected at all, and/or might serve for a much longer term. There is no provision that the Legislature must be elected at all, much less by universal suffrage. A State could create a "Republican Form of Government" that would resemble a consitutional monarchy to the modern mind, but not be an actual monarchy. Let's say the Governor is elected BY the Legislature, for life, or until he may resign or be recalled by the Legislature, and let's say that the Legislature might be appointed by the Town Councils, City Councils, and Ombudsmen of Unincorporated freeholds.

----------


## Invisible Man

> That would apply even to a non-republican form of government, _because there is no mandate or requirement_ that a "Republican Form of Government" is necessary to maintain inclusion in the Union.


I don't see how the words, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," do not constitute such a mandate.

You may be right about possible variations to what constitutes a republican form of government. But again, the criteria would be decided at the discretion of the federal government, not the states themselves.

----------


## Snowball

> I don't see how the words, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," do not constitute such a mandate.
> 
> You may be right about possible variations to what constitutes a republican form of government. But again, the criteria would be decided at the discretion of the federal government, not the states themselves.


the continuation of the sentence implies a request for assistance. "...and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." -- this could be interpreted to convey the definition of the guarantee not as a mandate or injunction, but as a guarantee IF a republican form of government is desired by the State. 

If you don't accept that interpretation, then you believe the Constitution does not allow States to have Sovereign Rights.

----------


## Invisible Man

> the continuation of the sentence implies a request for assistance. "...and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." -- this could be interpreted to convey the definition of the guarantee not as a mandate or injunction, but as a guarantee IF a republican form of government is desired by the State. 
> 
> If you don't accept that interpretation, then you believe the Constitution does not allow States to have Sovereign Rights.


That mention of a request for assistance only modifies that last item on the list "domestic violence," implying that when the states don't request that help they will handle that domestic violence themselves.

In cases of failing to have a republican form of government, it would be the state government itself that is the party the federal government would intervene to protect the people from (or at least protection of the people is the pretext that the federal government would use), so it would hardly be expected that that very same government would request the federal government to interfere with its own agenda.

Notice that no application from the state legislatures or executives are needed for the federal government to protect states from invasion either. The stipulation about that application is only for cases of domestic violence. 

But again, I also don't see anything especially good here for libertarians. This guarantee of a republican form of government may have been useful in the days of ratification as a way of getting the support of the state legislators who believed in republicanism and whose votes were needed for ratification, but only as a bait and switch, since in practice this provision is doomed to be subject to the whims of the federal government, which will always be populated by tyrants who aim toward expanding and further centralizing power over the states in their own regime, and who will define the words "republican form of government" in whatever way best fits their agenda.

Edit: Your last line is correct. The Constitution does not allow the states to have sovereign rights. At least not absolutely. The Constitution sets boundaries around state sovereignty, so as to only allow it on the exercise of powers that it doesn't give the federal government. If the Constitution had allowed the states to have absolute sovereign rights, that would have defeated the very purpose for which the Constitution was created, which was to create a more powerful and more centralized federal government over the states in contrast to the weaker and less centralized confederation that had obtained from the time of the DOI until then.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If you don't accept that interpretation, then you believe the Constitution does not allow States to have Sovereign Rights.


Yet some of the Founders desired the language to insure a State wouldn't institute a monarchy.  After all, the Constitution in several places refers to State legislatures, not just to state governments.  Given the language that was adopted, it's doubtful that the people of a State could eliminate their Governor, legislature, and Supreme Court and install a king.

----------


## Snowball

> Yet some of the Founders desired the language to insure a State wouldn't institute a monarchy.  After all, the Constitution in several places refers to State legislatures, not just to state governments.  Given the language that was adopted, it's doubtful that the people of a State could eliminate their Governor, legislature, and Supreme Court and install a king.


Well, it's never been tested, and much like the 2nd Amendment, the matter could be viewed either way, in the breakdown of the bifarcated sentence. I disagree with  @Invisible Man in two ways. 1) The guarantee is only applied in the case of duress, "on application of" (request for assistance), by the Legislature, that it does not apply if the Legislature disbands by changing the State Constitution, with the Executive blessing and Court, then it would kick in the crisis. The crisis would require either a Constitutional Convention or an unrequested, unwanted interference by the President, with or without Congress, to physically invade the State and overthrow its rulers. Or, SCOTUS could rule, but there are no precedents. Secession is not a precedent because there is no de jure secessive action on the part of the State. 

Like you said, some FF's wanted a no-monarchy clause, but it didn't happen. Interpreting A.4, S.4 as a no-monarchy or no-(insert form of non-Republican government here) clause renders it an intent which it does not possess, because the intent is clarified in the second part of the section, "on application of", i.e. a request. 

That being said, perhaps we can move on to the less controversial possibility and discuss exactly which FORMS of "Republican government" would cross the supposed line. Concerning sovereignty, I didn't mean to imply that the States have absolute sovereignty, they expressly rescinded that. However, you know there are many Consitutional scholars and historians who maintain that the States still have the right to secede, and if they have a right to secede, they have the lesser right to form their government by the consent of the governed without seeking secession, but to stay in the Union. 

Must a RFOG be Bicameral? Must the Executive (Governor) be elected? etc.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Must a RFOG be Bicameral?


Nebraska's had a unicameral legislature for 84 years, and no one seems to have complained.

----------


## Snowball

> Nebraska's had a unicameral legislature for 84 years, and no one seems to have complained.


Yes, but somehow I don't think it would matter if all the states just suddenly went Unicameral. D.C. is Unicameral, and they are muy liberal.

----------


## Invisible Man

> 1) The guarantee is only applied in the case of duress, "on application of" (request for assistance), by the Legislature, that it does not apply if the Legislature disbands by changing the State Constitution, with the Executive blessing and Court, then it would kick in the crisis. The crisis would require either a Constitutional Convention or an unrequested, unwanted interference by the President, with or without Congress, to physically invade the State and overthrow its rulers. Or, SCOTUS could rule, but there are no precedents.


There actually is precedent. What you just described is exactly what we did/tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. A state that's actually in the Union, for which the Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government, precisely because of that existing legal relationship with the federal government, would be even more liable to such action, rather than less.

----------


## Snowball

> There actually is precedent. What you just described is exactly what we did/tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. A state that's actually in the Union, for which the Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government, precisely because of that existing legal relationship with the federal government, would be even more liable to such action, rather than less.


This is a ludicrous statement. Iraq and Afghanistan are not States.

----------


## Invisible Man

> This is a ludicrous statement. Iraq and Afghanistan are not States.


They are states. Just not states in the Union, which is what I just said in the statement that you called ludicrous.

----------


## Snowball

> They are states. Just not states in the Union, which is what I just said in the statement that you called ludicrous.


Whether they are states is irrelevant. You said there is Constitutional Precedent by law. That is what is ludicrous.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Whether they are states is irrelevant. You said there is Constitutional Precedent by law. That is what is ludicrous.


Why are you changing what I said?

I never said either action was constitutional.

But if the federal government can do regime change in sovereign states over which it has no constitutional say, then the case for its authority to do that over states over which the Constitution expressly says that it must guarantee them a republican form of government is greater, not less.

Iraq and Afghanistan are precedent for the federal government doing something even more extreme and having less constitutional merit than what you're asking about.

----------


## Snowball

> Why are you changing what I said?


I did not. 

 Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
_There actually is precedent. What you just described is exactly what we did/tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. A state that's actually in the Union, for which the Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government, precisely because of that existing legal relationship with the federal government, would be even more liable to such action, rather than less._

----------


## Invisible Man

> I did not. 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
> _There actually is precedent. What you just described is exactly what we did/tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. A state that's actually in the Union, for which the Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government, precisely because of that existing legal relationship with the federal government, would be even more liable to such action, rather than less._



Much better. Now *that* is what I actually said. Thank you for not changing it this time,

----------


## Snowball

> Much better. Now *that* is what I actually said. Thank you for not changing it this time,


I didn't change it, but it's still ludicrous. Iraq and Afghanistan are not precedents for Constitutional interpretation, and I will also 
still maintain that states IN THE UNION can form non-Republican governments, that is where the no-precedent I mentioned applies.

----------


## Invisible Man

> I didn't change it, but it's still ludicrous. Iraq and Afghanistan are not precedents for Constitutional interpretation, and I will also 
> still maintain that states IN THE UNION can form non-Republican governments, that is where the no-precedent I mentioned applies.


They can do it. And the federal government can intervene with regime change to install governments that the federal government considers to be "republican" in form.

If the federal government considers it constitutional to do that in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the Constitution does not say they are to guarantee a republican form of government, then what in the world would prevent them from considering it constitutional to do in a state that's in the Union, for which the Constitution does say they are to guarantee that?

Were regime changes in Iraq and Afghanistan constitutional? I don't think so. But what I think doesn't matter. Do all three branches of the federal government treat those regime changes as constitutional? Yes, they do. Whatever provision in the Constitution they might point to in order to allow those actions (if they even recognize any obligation to point to anything in the Constitution at all) could just as readily be pointed to by them to authorize doing the same thing to a state that's in the Union.

----------

