Posted on 02/21/2008 8:26:51 AM PST by Turret Gunner A20
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.
OK .. enough about the democracy thing.
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.
Facts, you say? Yeah ... here are a couple of points for you to consider:
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.
Excellent point.
But this was in the beginning. Over time the word "democracy" did indeed mutate to where it meant pure unadulterated majority rule.
You have made two false statements in one sentence. Good job. We are not a democracy or a democratic republic. We are a Constitutional Republic.
Well, that was a different time. Owning land as a requirement made sense.
Also, you said blacks and women but I believe black freemen DID vote and were in State militias. I don’t think it’s true blacks couldn’t vote at all, though slaves obviously could not (and any free blacks in the South may have been prevented from doing so, not sure.)
But I think a good way to do it would be to only allow the vote in federal elections based on net tax paid. If you paid no income tax or were recipient of enough federal aid, you cannot vote in that year’s election. As soon as you are able to prove otherwise, you can vote again.
However, no plan is perfect. Why? Well, as I discussed with my mother, could you imagine if a Presidential candidate promised to forgive half of people’s student loan debts and promised to do it without raising taxes but by cutting out one of our useless bureaucracies (or two?) He’d be Prez in a landslide. The fact is, you can bribe people pretty easily if they have something to gain, especially if you frame it in such a way as it’s not just ‘welfare’ by another name.
It’s clear that if we continue with our same system, we will end up an authoritarian socialist state.
Oh well. There is no right to vote. Frankly, there are a lot of people who shouldn’t be able to vote. That is why I wouldn’t mind a test. Too many women voted for Bill Clinton because he was cute. In WV, my neighbor the felon can vote. We have a friend who knows nothing about anything about the world we live in, but he pulls that “D” every election. He could use a test...
Ah, that would be a good compromise and I second that!
I will fight to your death for your right to be wrong. However, that isn't my main objection to Boortz' piece which you so thoughtfully posted.
Rigorously applying the archaic rules of our founding documents to an election today could wreak politically incorrect havoc. Imagine the results of a straight election in Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, or Milwaukee. Why the magnificent political organization that gave us Ted Kennedy, and the Golden-Tongued Annointed One, Barack Hussein Obama (May Peace Be Upon Him) could possible suffer tragic losses! Perhaps even (GASP!) a Republican could find himself in the awkward position of represnting "urban" constituents.
Members of Federally Protected Minority Species could be restricted to just one vote ... and that vote would have to be cast in the precinct within which they are legally registered!
What will you think of next? Senators chosen by state legislatures?
Sometimes I think I would give up my vote if it meant no other women could vote either.
BTW, I think the property idea is great.
Posted on 02/12/2008 5:22:24 PM CST by Old Professer
Into the village of Perfect one day came limping this bedraggled and scruffy dog upon three legs. So sad the dog did seem to be that the hamlet’s sole Holy man was taken hold as though by a flash from above in his pity and shame for the creature’s suffering and loss of pride which imaged that of the people who milled about the square as the poor dog hobbled his way amid them.
The people, thought the Holy one, they see not the dog, as they see not their own slowed and stilted gait as the village’s name had come to mean less each day. This dog, the hapless cripple could not even evoke a single act of kindness from one.
The Holy one began to see the true meaning of the flash that cast before his eyes; here was redemption he exclaimed - for the village and this dog sent to teach us true and restore our faith.
“O’ People of Perfect,” he shouted, “Behold before you the dog with but three legs, can you not see him there? It is but for the loss of one leg that he is not proudly trotting among you, attend me now as we bestow on him his regained pride and strong, sure stride.”
And with those words the priest declared that from that moment on the dog would thrust his bent but still strong tail toward the ground and use it thus to take the place of the lost but not forgotten leg.
One by one, the villagers walked by and grabbed their eyes in disbelief as the tail turned down toward the ground and pushed so hard a shudder coursed through the stringy, bedraggled creature before them.
“Walk, the Holy one commanded!”
Stiffening at first, the left front leg showed sinews so long abused that they quivered for a bit, the right leg flexed and toes outstretched and now the left hind leg began to push; a sigh escaped among the awestruck crowd now grown so large to fill the square - “Walk,” they cried. “Walk like a king,” they implored.
The milling horde moved closer now in exaggerated mime, every fiber of their being directed at the miracle before them as though their own strong step would pass unto the dog still standing there on stiffened, unstarted strut; the tail now made into a leg curled somewhat and appeared to move toward the earth that bound it still.
The mass about the dog had grown quiet now, all attention upon the new leg, hundreds of wills working as one to loose those bonds and the dog’s ears lifted, I swear it smiled.
Then with but the least bit of yelp and scratch of nails, the hindmost leg bent forward first, slid back and begun to lift, the dog was standing on his tail.
Alas, the dog plopped to the ground, the crowd clamored and quarrled and shoved each other about, the priest was brushed aside in a grumbled “Fraud...” as the crowd became as before, a sullen group of untouched grumps walking only to keep from going home.
And no one looked behind to see the silly mutt lying gleefully on his back as he licked the hand of the Holy man who but shook his head sadly as the dog waved gloriously at the backs of the disappearing crowd with his tail flapping like a gale-blown flag.
For even this sorry, scruffy excuse for a dog knew that if calling a tail a leg makes not it so, why cannot the wisest know.
As another poster so brilliantly noted, so was Nazi Germany a Republic, as well as the USSR.
We are a democratic form of government, like it or not. That's why there are uneven numbers of Justices on all Appeals Courts, and on SCOTUS, so that the majority will rule. That's also why the Vice President has the Constitutional power to cast the deciding vote in the case of the Senate voting 50-50; again, majority will rule. In State elections the majority of votes wins, democracy at work. They also count electoral votes in Presidential elections, and the candidate with the most electoral votes wins; majority rules, democracy at work. From city, county, state to federal government, majority rules. That's called democratic government.
Even when laws are written in our Constitution to protect minorities in America, those laws required a majority of votes to pass, so majority rules again, democracy prevails in the Republic. If you do not believe we are a democratic republic, then your argument is with men who are far brighter than I am, you are arguing with statesmen, historians, justices, Senators and Presidents, present and past, and of antiguity.
I have heard men like Rush Limbaugh, whom I listen to regularly and admire greatly say things about democracy like: "Democracy is mob rule". I don't know where Rush and others get the idea that a majority has to be a "mob". Can't a simple majority be a peacable, moral and just group? Why must they be symonomous with a "mob"? These are rhetorical questions of course.
Last night I watched Leno quiz some of his guests on history, geography and politics. The questions were very elementary. The ignorance of those young adults was staggering. I thought, “Lord, help us all, because those idiots will vote”.
Heaven spare us!!!!!!
There was no popular vote in the election of 1789. Instead, the electoral college chose from a group of candidates. Each college member cast two votes with the candidate receiving the most votes becoming president and the runner-up becoming vice-president. George Washington was elected unanimously receiving all sixty-nine electoral votes. John Adams came in second and became the first Vice-President.
Washington won with a total of 69 out of 69 votes. The vote for Washington was unanimous among the Electoral College, those representatives the states elected to choose our president.
The republican basis of the Electoral College stems from the Constitution. When the founders of the United States set out to secure a system of political representation, many among them feared mob rule. Elections based on representative blocks of votes would implement checks within the system. The Framers took into consideration that large numbers of regional candidates could appeal to the interests of various select groups, and thus the populace could be divided widely, and disturbances in the succession of power could ensue. They surmised that Congress should have the power to settle issues that are not resolved in a popular election, and thus they created the Electoral College.
I found this interesting:
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees.
...including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln....
He means in the military (service). Are you saying you don’t want certain soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines being able to vote?
Indeed.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison
AMEN! And I would also, in a perfect world, add some sort of IQ test. Listening to Hannity's man on the street segments, when half the people can't identify who the Vice President is, is downright scarey.
Constitutional Conservatism is two wolves and an armed sheep discussing the matter in greater detail and coming to a mutually beneficial decision.
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can
any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is
preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant,
and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own
weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”
— Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775)
Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (261)
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.