SORRY ... BUT IT'S HARD TO DEAL WITH THE UNEDUCATED SOMETIMES.

Now I know that with our system of government schools there is every excuse for people to be badly misinformed on critical issues. Let's face it ... these government schools have been more interested in feeding you dogma than the truth. Let's take the idea that our country is a democracy, for instance. I would guess that virtually every government school in this nation teaches its hostages (students) that the United States is a democracy.

Now don't you find this just a bid odd, considering the fact that neither the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any of the 50 state even contain the word "democracy?" Isn't it odder still that the Constitution specifically says that our form of government is "Republican?"

Yes .. there's a reason for this. Around the time of Woodrow Wilson the idea of government welfare programs that were outside of the grant of authority in our Constitution began to take hold. Politicians knew that if they continued to tout the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they would have a rather difficult time getting their government welfare programs enacted. So, the idea started to spread that we were a democracy .. a country ruled by men and not the law. Whatever the majority of the people (voters) wanted .. they got. After all, isn't that what democracy (majority rule) means?

You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought of the idea of a democracy. There's an incredible book out there titled "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. Here's your link if you might like to get a copy.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-0485106-2719025?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Revolutionary+Generation.+&x=15&y=13

The author, historian Joseph Ellis, tells us at the very beginning of this book just what our founding fathers thought of the idea of democracy. Here's what they thought of democrats:

"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

I know ... it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes the Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both Obama and Hillary have been little more than examples of pandering "to the crude and mindless whims of the masses."

So .. why have our government schools been so anxious to spread the "democracy" lie? Because the more people believe that crap the stronger government becomes. If the dumb masses can be convinced that, since we are a democracy, the government should be able to do whatever the political class convinces the majority of Americans it should do ... then we have stronger politicians and weaker protections for our rights.

Let's move to another area of widespread ignorance among the American people. Again ... you came by it honestly. Government schools. I speaking here of the almost universal belief that you have a constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Hint .. .you do not.

I talked about this right to vote thing on the show a few days ago, and Web Guy (the poor SOB) tells me that we have been receiving a string of rather unfriendly emails from people calling me a moron, an idiot and other similar names for my statement on the right to vote. Some of these emailers cite various Constitutional provisions in an attempt to prove their brilliance and my abject ignorance.

Look .. I don't really mind the fact that many of you have been indoctrinated into this "right to vote" bit by our government schools. You were had. You were intentionally misinformed. You should not feel ashamed that you were fooled this way. After all, every where you go you hear about this right to vote BS ... so it's no wonder you've bought it. The shame is in sticking to your erroneous beliefs when the facts are presented to you.

Let's make our first stop at Wikipedia. We'll make two stops. First, the entry for "Voting rights in the United States." There you will find the following sentence: There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that they cannot be denied based solely on the aforementioned qualifications, however, the "right to vote" may be denied for any other reason (i.e. being convicted of a felony).

Next stop .. .the Wikipedia entry for "Sufferage." A subsection of this entry covers the history of suffrage (the vote) in the United States. Here you go: In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally. There is no national "right to vote". The states and the people have changed the U.S. Constitution five times to disallow states from limiting suffrage, thereby expanding it.

 15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
 19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
 23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President
 24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
 26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from voting because of their age

Moving right along now, here's an article written by Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. entitled "The Right to Vote." Jackson writes: "And yet the right to vote is not a fundamental right in our Constitution." I guess that you folks who have been sending in those emails are right, and the Congressman is wrong ... right? Jackson has introduced a voting rights amendment in the congress. Now just why would he need to do that if the right already existed?

I'm not through with you yet. Let's go to Michael C. Dorf. Dorf is the Vice Dean and professor of law at Columbia University. Dorf wrote this article entitled "We Need A Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections." Tell me, would a law professor write a column calling for a constitutional right to vote if we already had one?

Final stop ... the complete text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al. Take a look at Section II, Paragraph B. The very first sentence there reads: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art.II, §1." Enough? I would certainly hope so.

So you clowns out there keep sending all of those emails telling me what an idiot I am for saying that there is no constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Read the sources I've presented to you above ... and send me another email.

Some would say that intelligence can be measured by your ability to recognize that you're wrong on an issue. Many times in my 38-year talk radio career I've had to admit that I got something wrong. I hope I never grow too old to learn. Some of you are already there.

By the way ... why is this issue so important to me? Well .... Look what these damned voters are doing to the greatest experiment in governance in the history of the world!

Once we have accepted the truth – that they don't have a constitution right to vote – then we can set about the task of getting some of these dumb masses out of our voting booths.

Think about it ... we offer parasites the opportunity to register to vote when they sign up for welfare! What the hell kind of sense does that make?

The hell with the idea of pandering to the poor, poor pitiful poor. We didn't put them there. They did it to themselves .. .and I damned sure don't want them making decisions that can affect the way I live my life .. and how much of the money that I earn I can keep.

If we must, we'll take care of them and make sure they don't starve, get basic medical care, and have a place to go when it rains or gets cold. Fine. That's nothing we wouldn't do for stray animals .. .but they sure don't need to be voting.

"Your “21” years explanation is a mute point. The point was that CONGRESS came up with the numbers not the CONSTITUTION. Hence the FOUNDERS who actually wrote the document contradicted everything you said in the initial post I responded to you."

You may be a dope, but you're not talking to one over here. You are applying a very typical 'bait-and-switch' tactic here with your mind numbing statement. I am saying that democracy's fingerprints are found all over our country's system of government, past and present, and that this is undeniable. I pointed to the fact that even our (Appeals) Court system has, and always has had, a democratic means of decision making, (majority rules). You come back with something about the Constitution allowing Congress to appoint as many judges to these appeals courts as they wish, and they indeed have appointed an ODD number of justices for all but 21 years of our blessed history, clearly showing that they wanted a democratically styled Appeals Court and Supreme Court system. Since the Constitution doesn't mandate a certain number of Appeals Court justices, that only shows that the Founding Fathers were open to a majority rules Court system, or some other type of system. But it certainly does not endorse your assertion that the Framers somehow would have disapproved of the democratic, majority opinion rules system that has predominated our Court system for most our history.

It's actually laughable, your agrument, because leaving Congress wide open to appoint how ever many justices they want to place into the Appeals Courts only means that the Founding Fathers left this part of the Court system up to the people. And Congress, (representing the people), decided to make the Appeals Courts like themselves, a system where majority rules. You cannot deny historical facts, even with silly bait and switch tactics. You have nothing to argue about here if you're paying attention and being honest. The Constitution allows for a democratic, majority rules Appeals Court system, and that's exactly what we've had over the centuries.

Your a dope and “bait and switch”? At least I am coherent enough to understand what the difference is between being a democracy and exercising democratic practices are.

We use democratic principles but we were set up as a Representative Constitutional Republic (If the “people” are wise enough to sustain it).

Do the people decide Appellate Court outcomes? Do the people elect members of the appellate court? No an oligarchy does no matter how the court is configured USING democratic practices. Are you now going to say we are not only a democracy but an oligarchy as well?

I figure one can make the case for that as well, in fact 40 million plus are dead not because of democracy or adhering to the explicitness of the Constitution but the exact opposite, the personnel opinions of an oligarchy (By exercising democratic PRICIPLES to reach a decision). Or are you telling me the “people”, being a Democratic nation and all, voted for Roe v. Wade? “Of course rollo we are not a direct democracy but we are a democracy though” circular logic of disinformation (Of the founders intentions) you have been spewing.

Presidents have been using the court as a means to control policy. If the right Congress obliges you have changes. That is a democracy? Do “the people” decide these things?

Why did the first session of the first United States Congress (Responsible for setting up our government in the first place) settle on the original six? Why don’t you gage into their minds and actually understand their wisdom?

By the way, how is this setting up a democracy again? Of course Presidents have tried to pack the court in their favor, wanted an odd number to avoid a split but the original Congress thought the number 6 was sufficient enough (Of course future bodies of congress and “the people” thought an oligarchy was a swell idea).

Of course you never addressed the electoral college issue. How could being a democracy and all, an actual elector could go against “the will of the people”? “But we are a democracy rollo”.

Don’t worry, we are embracing “true” democracy at a rapid pace. Soon the Constitution will be completely out of it’s cage (About 3/4 out already) and those that cry “we are a democracy” will finally realize their dream, tyranny.

Now I agree with you about todays government inching towards democracy rather than the Rep. Con. Republic. I believe we are becoming more of a democracy (Harking back to 1913 again) and in some ways direct. “The people” seem to be addicted to telling landowners what to do with their property, but as I stated before Boortz and Limbuagh understood the founding fathers who established this government. It’s a shame “the people” dropped the ball, thinking we were established as a “democracy” by letting our servants become our masters and also engaging in a sense of tyranny “ourselves”.

Now do I have to pull out all the quotes/Federalist Papers/Anti-Federalist papers warnings of not containing safeguards (From “turning into” a democracy) - - about how the United States is not a “democracy” from those that CREATED this country in the first place?

Frankly this “dope” does not have the time but I pointed you in the right direction.

“The point was that CONGRESS came up with the numbers not the CONSTITUTION.”

Forgot, apparently in your rant of “democratic means of decision making” (You are finally getting it) by elected Reps., you failed to understand what I was trying to say.

If we were a true “democracy” the founders would have placed an odd number of justices by DEFAULT and insisted when Congress expanded the court an odd number be kept by CONSTITUTIONTIONAL authority. You implied that it was always an odd number in your initial post and it was not. Had you have been honest you would of pointed out the USSC started at six, changed, went to another even number 50+ years later and to further your cause say “democracy” changed that.

Of course they settled at 6 in the beginning and gave Congress the power to expand as they saw fit. If Congress wanted an uneven number of oligarchs than so be it. How are “the people” involved in this process again? Are we not a “democracy”?

“I demand the right to vote how many Justices are on the court. Give me my democracy damn it”.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.