(didn't really "nail" it)

 (didn't really "nail" it)

Let us only assume what is within the quotation above the picture of the man above; let us now use the logic of the concepts he employs and see if we can derive a more consistent conclusion

{I would suggest, that rather than having "nailed it", he missed it entirely, hit his thumb and screamed philosophical obscenities at the god of reason.}


IF "citizens" have "rights" THEN the "Constitutional Republic" cannot act in its corporate-personhood, except in accordance with the "rights" of those "citizens"; IF the "Constitutional Republic" necessarily consists of a composite of individual persons AND "rights" must necessarily consist of what is in accordance with reason/reality (AND NOT mere declaration/fiat of the opinion of a few/minority-of individuals), THEN there must necessarily be an unanimous-consent of all individuals ("citizens") upon whom the "Constitutional Republic" acts upon within the "Constitutional Republic"-'s jurisdiction.  Therefore, only "checks" or "balances" upon which a "Constitutional Republic" may legitimately/validly rest, is upon the unanimous-consent of all individuals who consent to be within the jurisdiction of the "Constitutional Republic"; the "jurisdiction" on the "Constitutional Republic" must THEREFORE be limited to those individuals who consent to the "Constitutional Republic"-'s jurisdiction.  THEREFORE, any "Constitutional Republic" which violates the "rights" of any non-consenting individual, has denied its own legitimacy/validity and has reverted to mere tyranny.