It’s a problem that’s puzzled political philosophers for centuries. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:
“Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or three thousand tyrants one mile away?”
— Rev. Mather Blyes (1706-1788)
Does it really matter if the instrument curtailing liberty is a monarch or a popularly elected legislature? This conundrum, along with the witty version of it put to a Boston crowd in 1775 by the little-known colonial-era preacher with the famous uncle — Cotton Mather — addresses the age-old question of whether liberty can long survive in a democracy.
Blyes was a loyalist, who, along with about one-third of the American adult white male population in 1776, opposed the American Revolution and favored continued governance by Great Britain.
He didn’t fight for the king or agitate against George Washington’s troops; he merely warned of the dangers of too much democracy.
No liberty-minded thinker I know of seriously argues today in favor of a hereditary monarchy, but many of us are fearful of an out-of-control democracy, which is what we have in America today. I say “democracy” because there remain in our federal structure a few safeguards against runaway federal tyranny, such as the equal state representation in the Senate, the Electoral College, the state control of federal elections, and life-tenured federal judges and justices.
STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC 
Although the states were the dictators of the Covid response they were authorized by the Executive Order signed on March 13, 2020 by President Trump offering the states billions of dollars to enforce the Model State Emergency Health Plan which outlined the direction and mode of the states to enforce the socialist plan to destroy business, employment and personal interactions of the people.
There is no friend of the constitution, a contract regulating the federal government, in either party or any elected leader. Rights and liberties have been abrogated and will not be returned for any price.
LikeLike