Replies

"No I don't believe in mob rule. I don't believe in pure democracy."

Well, I'm not talking about either mob rule or pure democracy, but representative democracy.

Specifically, I've been talking about who controls Congress.

We're in an election year, at that is the time that even our Founding Fathers agreed that we got to vote. And when we vote, even they didn't think that we were limited in what we choose. So, it's an election year, and the border issue is in full flaming cry. And THAT'S what people are going to vote (or, especially, not vote) on.

It's not pure democracy to say to a party: IF you don't do what I want, I will NOT vote for you. And if the other side wins, well, so be it.

That's where we are with the BorderBots. They want a closed border, as quickly as possible, and it's an election year. Even our Founding Fathers did not envision a process whereby our political officeholders got to escape from the public will during election years. A republican form of government may not be a pure democracy, but certainly there is NO limit in it, even as originally conceived, that prevents PRECISELY what is currently happening: IF you do not hold a certain position, I will NOt vote for you, and you will lose and the other side will win.

The BorderBots are not talking about a referendum. What has the GOP panicked is that the BorderBots are talking about simply staying home and letting the Democrats win. That is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE under the Constitution of 1787, as originally drafted. The People are not DIRECTLY voting for a rule. Rather, they are saying that they will not support a particular party that does not do a certain thing. Perfectly legitimate, and perfectly a "republican form of government" under the Constitution as the Founders envisioned it. They didn't envision a sham Constitution which was simply a PRETENCE of voting in the public will, while a political elite did whatever the Hell it wanted without control from the electorate. Rather, they envisioned periodic democratic election of representatives, with the represenatives governing.

They did NOT envision that representatives would be completely unaccountable to the People for what they did while in office. They did not envision that the People had to forget their record and blindly vote every two years. No. They provided two year elections, during which the People COULD express themselves, and remove a recalcitrant political party from power if it didn't do what they want.

And that's precisely what we're facing with the BorderBots and the Republican Party right now. This is EMINENTLY within the scope of what the Founders intended. They didn't intend a sham Republic and a sham vote, but a real, periodic vote. The chickens have come home to roost for the Republicans on the border issue. This is a year of vote, and those office holders are exposed to the voting public THIS year, when the elections happen. That's not an unenvisioned circumstance.

The BorderBots are an important enough portion of the Republican electorate that the election will be lost without them. Therefore, the Republican politicians are faced by the Constitutionally-imposed reality of the two year election, and are accountable to the People THIS year for what they do. This is not some sort of strange innovation. It's why the Federalists lost in the election of 1800 and the Democratic-Republicans and Jefferson won: the people DO get to vote, periodically, for their representatives, and were always INTENDED to. Our Constitution does not establish a SHAM republic, but a REAL democratic republic.

People don't vote too often, and they don't vote on everything, but when they DO vote, it was NEVER envisioned, not even by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, that if they were offended at the ruling party for whatever reason, they couldn't replace them abruptly in an election year.

And that's where we are, this year, with the border.
This IS the Constitution of 1787, as envisioned by the Founders, in full function. If Congress doesn't give the people what they want during the two year election cycle, they are replaced. That's not radical, it was the original intent of the document.

You seem to go further, and suggest that there is ultimately NO democratic check on Congress, that the Founders were so suspicious of democracy that they erected a SHAM republic, where the ruling politicians could ALWAYS act in what they thought was the national best interest, without EVER being overridden and removed from power by an offended people. But that's NOT the actual Constitution.

Immigration is intentionally being brought to a head DURING the 1787-envisioned 2-year Congressional election cycle. It is fully within the Founders intent that, if the Congress displeases the people (by not erecting a border fence), that the People have the right to democratically remove their elected representatives during the election cycle.

And that's what's going to happen if the Republicans in the Congress don't cave, now.