Resolving family legal issues can be stressful and complicated. Emotions run high, and it can be difficult to see the matter clearly. You need objective legal counsel from an experienced family attorney. Call the Law Office of John Williams in Charlotte, NC. John Williams can assist you if you're filing for divorce. He also handles child custody and guardianship cases.


Arrange for a consultation with a divorce attorney in Charlotte, NC today.

The Unites States of America A Constitutional Republic
Careful What You Wish For!

Colorado Wasteful Spending (FY 2024-25)


Department of Corrections: $ 7,995,411 Increase 28.3 FTE


● Transgender Unit and Healthcare

- $2,677,911 to create two transgender living units totaling 148 beds.

- $5,317,500 for “gender-confirming surgical care.


●Clinical Staff Incentives

- $6,312,464 General Fund to provide incentive payments for certain DOC clinical staff up to $25,000.

- The bill includes an increase of $6,312,464 General Fund to provide incentive payments for certain DOC clinical staff up to $25,000.


●HB 24-1389 School Funding 2023-24 for New Arrival Students (immigrants): $24,000,000

- The bill provides $24,000,000 to be distributed to school districts and charter schools for new arrival students. It increases state expenditures and school district funding in the current FY 2023-24 only.


● Office of New Americans Expansion (immigrants): $119,029 General Fund and 1.5 FTE

- $119,029 General Fund and 1.5 FTE for an administrator to manage ONA grants, coordinate with other entities, and identify opportunities for new migrant career pathway enhancement and a full-time program assistant to support the ONA Director.

-This office has had difficulty expending grants.


●SB 24-182 Immigrant Identification Document Issuance: $ 122,855

- The bill changes certain requirements for the issuance of driver licenses or state identification cards to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. The bill increases state expenditures for FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26 only.


●HB 24-1280 Welcome, Reception, Integration, Grant Program:

$ 2,436,862

- The bill creates the Statewide Welcome, Reception, and Integration Grant Program to provide assistance to migrants. It transfers funds in FY 2024-25 only.


●Immigrant Legal Defense Fund: $ 350,000

- Long Bill budget amendment

- A doubling of the fund for FY 2024-25 making a total budget of $700,000. This funding is used for public defense for people facing immigration legal issues. Sponsored by Rep. Mabrey and Sen. Gonzalez.


●Office of Health Equity and Environmental Justice: $ 2,840,715

- Funding for the Office

- Mission: Build partnerships to mobilize community power and transform systems to advance health equity and environmental justice.

- What this office does to advance their mission:

1. Build relationships with communities and across sectors to address root causes of health disparities.

2. Use equity in decision-making and partner with all sectors of government to embed health and equity considerations into their decision-making process.

3. Use data to support the narrative of the social determinants of health and tell the story of what creates health.

4. De-center communications from the English language or any one dominant language, and prioritize language justice when engaging with communities.

5. Develop, implement, and provide guidance on health equity training, practice, and policies within CDPHE and across the state of Colorado.

6. Focus on upstream determinants of health, guided by the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative.


●HB 24-1197 Department of Public Safety Supplemental: $ 9,800,000

- Funding for Community-based organizations providing service for migrants.

- Funds to provide grants to community-based organizations providing services to people migrating to Colorado.


●Department of Education: $ 56,100,000

- Expanding Healthy Meals for All Program.

- Adds $56.1 million total funds for the Healthy School Meals for All Program, including $40.6 million from the Healthy School Meals for All Program General Fund Exempt Account and $15.5 million from the General Fund. This includes an increase of $56.0 million for meal reimbursements and $100,000 for consulting resources.


●HB 21-1318 Department of Public Health & Environment: $ 198,192

- Outdoor Equity Program

- This bill injected identity politics into access to the outdoors.


●Department of Public Health & Environment: $2,840,715 total funds and 8.3 FTE

- Creating the Office of Health Equity and Environmental Justice by combining two offices.

- The bill includes an increase of $2,840,715 total funds and 8.3 FTE, including a reduction of $11,349 General Fund, to join the Environmental Justice Program with the Office of Health Equity to form the Office of Health Equity and Environmental Justice (OHEEJ) for the purpose of centralizing environmental justice staff. OHEEJ is responsible for ongoing environmental justice work, including administration of environmental health mitigation grants through the Community Impact Cash Fund.


●Department of Revenue: $714,515 total funds and 8.3 FTE

- GENTAX & DRIVES SUPPORT FUNDING: The bill includes an increase of $714,515 total funds and 8.3 FTE, comprised of $442,906 General Fund and $271,609 cash funds from the Colorado DRIVES Vehicle Services. Account, in FY 2024-25. Funds will address the backlog of upgrades and system enhancements to the DRIVES and GenTax systems stemming from legislative, user experience, and system operational demands.

Careful What You Wish For!

You Just Might Get It!


The United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, a distinction the Founding Fathers emphasized to safeguard individual liberties against the tyranny of the majority. Today, this distinction is critical in understanding the contentious debate over abortion rights in Republican-led states. Many argue that "democracy" demands unrestricted abortion access, citing public opinion polls favoring reproductive choice. However, the Founders' vision, as articulated in the Federalist Papers and other writings, rejected democracy in favor of a Constitutional Republic to protect fundamental rights and prevent mob rule. The push for abortion rights through democratic majoritarianism actually undermines the constitutional framework established by the founders.



The Founders’ Rejection of Pure Democracy


The Founding Fathers were wary of democracy’s volatility. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." He argued that a republic, with its system of representation and constitutional checks, mitigates the dangers of factionalism and majority tyranny. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68, emphasized the need for deliberative governance to prevent "the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" through popular passions. John Adams, in a 1788 letter, stated, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." These writings underscore the Founders’ preference for a constitutional republic, where laws and rights are anchored in a stable framework, not swayed by fleeting majorities.

Benedict Delarosa’s Democracy or Republic: Which Are We? echoes this, noting that the Founders designed a system to protect minority rights against democratic overreach. Delarosa argues that the Constitution’s structure, with its enumerated powers, separation of powers, and Bill of Rights, ensures governance reflects principle over popularity. This is particularly relevant to abortion, where public opinion often clashes with constitutional and moral considerations.


Abortion Rights and the Tyranny of the Majority


The abortion debate exemplifies the tension between democracy and a constitutional republic. In Republican-led states, legislatures have enacted restrictive abortion laws, often citing moral or scientific grounds for protecting fetal life. For example, Texas’s Senate Bill 8 (2021) bans abortions after six weeks, leveraging private enforcement to limit access (Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 171.208). Similarly, Alabama’s Human Life Protection Act (2019) prohibits most abortions, with narrow exceptions (Ala. Code § 26-23H-4). These laws reflect the will of state legislatures, elected by local majorities, yet face criticism as undemocratic from advocates who cite national polls, such as a 2022 Pew Research Center survey showing 61% of Americans support legal abortion in most cases.


However, the Founders’ vision prioritizes constitutional limits over majority opinion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), ruling that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228). Justice Alito’s majority opinion emphasized that abortion regulation belongs to state legislatures, aligning with the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states (U.S. Const. amend. X). This decision reinforces the republic’s federalist structure, allowing states to reflect their constituents’ values rather than imposing a uniform national standard driven by democratic sentiment.


Democracy’s Threat to Constitutional Balance


The push for abortion rights through democratic mechanisms, such as ballot initiatives, risks undermining this balance. In 2022, Kansas voters rejected a constitutional amendment to remove abortion protections, with 59% opposing it, demonstrating democracy’s power to shape policy. Similarly, California’s Proposition 1 (2022) enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution, reflecting majority will (Cal. Const. art. I, § 1.1). While these outcomes are celebrated as democratic victories, they highlight the danger Madison warned of: majorities overriding minority rights or dissenting values. In Republican-led states, where conservative majorities support restrictive laws, abortion advocates argue that national opinion should prevail, effectively advocating for a pure democracy that disregards federalism.


Delarosa’s pamphlet warns that “such democratic impulses erode the republic’s safeguards”. He cites the Electoral College and Senate’s equal state representation as mechanisms to prevent populous urban centers from dominating less populated regions (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; art. I, § 3). In the abortion context, this ensures states like Wyoming or Idaho can enact laws reflecting their values, even if they conflict with urban-majority states like New York. Overriding these state powers through national referenda or federal legislation risks centralizing authority, a move the Founders rejected to preserve liberty.


Legal Precedents and the Republic’s Framework


Legal battles across the country underscore the republic’s role in balancing competing interests. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court upheld Roe but allowed states to impose restrictions, recognizing their authority to regulate abortion within constitutional bounds (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833). Post-Dobbs, states like Florida passed the Heartbeat Protection Act (2023), banning abortions after six weeks (Fla. Stat. § 390.0111), while Ohio voters approved a 2023 amendment protecting abortion rights (Ohio Const. art. I, § 22). These outcomes reflect the republic’s federalist design, where states serve as "laboratories of democracy" within constitutional limits, as Justice Brandeis described in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932) (285 U.S. 262).


However, democratic activism threatens this balance. In Missouri, a 2024 ballot initiative seeks to overturn restrictive abortion laws, driven by urban voters. Such efforts, while democratic, risk marginalizing rural communities, whose values differ. The Founders’ republic, with its checks like the Senate and judicial review, ensures minority voices are not drowned out. Delarosa argues that abandoning these checks for majority rule invites instability, as seen in historical democracies that collapsed under populist pressures.


The Moral and Philosophical Divide


Abortion is not merely a legal issue but a moral one, complicating democratic solutions. Republican-led states often base restrictions on the belief that life begins at conception, supported by statutes like Georgia’s LIFE Act (2019), which grants personhood to fetuses (Ga. Code Ann. § 16-12-141). Abortion advocates counter that bodily autonomy is paramount, a view reflected in New York’s Reproductive Health Act (2019) (N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2599-BB). A pure democracy might resolve this through majority vote, but the Founders’ republic prioritizes deliberation and constitutional principles. Madison’s Federalist No. 51 advocates for checks and balances to prevent any faction, even a majority, from imposing its will unchecked.

Delarosa emphasizes that the Constitution’s neutrality on morally divisive issues allows states to reflect their communities’ values. Forcing a national abortion policy through democratic means disregards this, risking alienation and division. The republic’s structure encourages compromise and localized governance, not the winner-takes-all approach of democracy.


Returning to the Constitutional Republic


To preserve the Founders’ vision, we must resist the allure of pure democracy in the abortion debate. Republican-led states’ restrictive laws reflect their constituents’ values, just as liberal states’ protections reflect theirs. This federalist balance, rooted in the Tenth Amendment, respects diverse perspectives.

Citizens in Republican-led states should defend their legislatures’ authority to regulate abortion, as upheld in Dobbs. Simultaneously, they must engage in principled dialogue, acknowledging the moral complexity of abortion. The Founders’ republic encourages such deliberation, not the divisive majoritarianism of democracy. As Delarosa argues, returning to a constitutional republic means prioritizing the Constitution’s framework over transient public opinion, ensuring liberty and stability for all.


In conclusion, the push for abortion rights through democratic means threatens the Constitutional Republic the Founders envisioned. By respecting state sovereignty and constitutional limits, we honor their wisdom, as articulated in the Federalist Papers and Delarosa’s analysis.  We must hold true to our founding principles and reject these erroneous inclinations to call us a “democracy” or to give way to “democratic” principles over our Constitutional Republic, it is far from a trivial play on words, it is a fundamental issue of how we are structured and how we protect the rights of every citizen, including the unborn! 


Get legal guidance from an experienced attorney