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.
Yes, I am aware that he meant military service. I was saying that I don't want certain military personnel to have DOUBLE the vote that everyone else gets. Actually, I don't want ANY military personnel, or anyone else for that matter, to have DOUBLE the vote of everyone else.
I’ve been saying that for years.
I guess you are one of those, “I am never going to listen to you again” Neal loves to talk about?
Some just can’t handle the truth.
Neal supports Homosexuals and pushes ABORTION. For a human being to put aniaml rights before a child is disgusting. In my own defense, I’ve tried many times to overlook his stupidity and ignorance in those particular areas because of his support of the President with the Global War on Terror, but today his whining on and on about stupid stuff proved he is a waste of air space.
For the record, people such as myself are the reason people like him have stayed on the air. My support has offically been pulled, because I refuse to support absolute morons.
Now go give him a big ole bear hug and tell Neal how wonderful he is while he is laughing on his way to the bank... (gag).
I think you need to go back to school.
With the Judiciary Act of 1789, a total of six (Which is an even number by the way) USSC Justices were seated. The number would reach all the way to 10 (Which is an even number) and eventually settle with the nine we are unfortunate to have right now. The Constitution leaves the number (Any appellate court for that matter) up to Congress.
You mention the electoral college but do you realize in some States the electors are allowed to cast their EV to any candidate they desire and forgo "the people's will".
In 1913 democracy grew and our Republic form of government weakened. Limbaugh and Boortz are talking about the wisdom our founders had regarding the dangers of being too democratic of a nation when they awaken those who understood the warnings about "mob rule" and gave us a Constitutional Republic who "...are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..."(In case one wants to compare Madison, Jefferson, Adams etc... to Adolph Hitler)
If the dumb masses can be convinced
If you say that pair of words aloud, rapidly, it makes more sense.
***Somewhere in there is a great tagline.
Ping
I rent also, and I still think it’s a good idea.
It was obviously a drive-by. This Boortz guy does seem a little full of himself though. I've never had the easy opportunity to listen to him and really know nothing about him other than my recent investigation of the "FT" proposal.
New quote!
Blacks, hell no.
Women....
:-)
As I understnad it from reading VDH (including “A War Like No Other” and “Who Killed Homer” that was true in Sparta and other places but not in the Delian League (especially Athens) which WAS more like a democracy.
In fact, that was what VDH attributes the Peloponnesian war to. Fear of Athens exporting democracy.
Cat on keyboard.
And, by the way — as you can well imagine, that was NOT a direct quote of what I said to said ‘cat on keyboard.’
?
1. I posted the article.
2. I postted no comment on the article, thus the # ` post was blank.
3. On post # 91 you Said "New Quote!!"
4. I took that to mean a humorous sarcasm meaning 'was the blank space some sort of a new quote?'; and
5. I posted # 94 "Cat on keyboard", which meant that one of my caats had jumped on the keyboard, hit a click on the mouse, posting the article before I got a chance to post a comment. That's all it meant.
Yes, nine, which is of course an uneven number. There, I said it for you. The Judiciary was the slowest branch of government to develop over the years, but the Marshall Court, (1801 - 1836), ended the practice of each judge issuing his opinion seriatim, and instead one MAJORITY opinion, (there's that Democratic thing again), of the Court was issued. And this dates back to 1801.
The Constitution leaves the number (Any appellate court for that matter) up to Congress.
And Congress allowed an even number of SCOTUS Justices for only 21 years in American history. You have ,(conveniently, I suppose), omitted the fact that during the time between 6 and 10 SCOTUS Justices, the Congress appointed 7, (an odd number,), and then nine, (an odd number), and then 10 for only three years, after which Congress appointed 7 again through attrition, by disallowing three Justices to have replacements. Then in 1869, (that's 169 years ago for those who may be math challenged), the Congress appointed 9 Justices, and it has remained that way ever since.
What do these trifling little facts mean? They mean that there were an even number of SCOTUS Justices for only a paltry total of 21 years of our nation's entire history. So it is safe to say, again, that the Supreme Court has historically held an UNEVEN number of Justices, just as there has historically been an uneven number of Appeals Court Judges, usually three, (that's an odd number). This concept of a Democratic system within our higher Courts is no recent development as you tried to claim, it is long-standing American history.
You mention the electoral college but do you realize in some States the electors are allowed to cast their EV to any candidate they desire and forgo "the people's will".
Yes I do realize that, though I don't recall it ever happening. None-the-less, a candidate's still needs a majority of the electoral votes, (270 or more), to win. So once again we see a democratic, majority system at the heart of American politics, no matter how you slice it, dice it or festoon it.
In 1913 democracy grew and our Republic form of government weakened. Limbaugh and Boortz are talking about the wisdom our founders had regarding the dangers of being too democratic of a nation when they awaken those who understood the warnings about "mob rule"---
And again I ask, who the hell says that a majority must be a "mob"? Why do Limbaugh and others try to make 'majority' and 'mob' synonymous with each other? What's up with that? How many times have we seen the minority become a mob rule, such as the buring down of cities by blacks demanding rights? Or by millions of illegal aliens trying to bring the nation to a halt with a massive economic boycott, brandishing foreign flags to symbolize Mexican sovereignty, giving foul gestures to citizens. The only "mob rule" I've ever seen in the U.S. is that of minorities, not the majority. Maybe it's time for the majority to use a little Democracy and take back America.
By the way, I do not claim to know if a Democracy is better than a Republic, or a Democratic Republic is better than a Kingdom, or if a Kingdom is better than a Banana Republic. I do know that nations come and nations go, and even the mightiest will eventually fall, with no exceptions. What worries me most about America isn't whether or not we're a democracy or a republic, but that we have become a corrupt, morally rotten nation that is decaying from within. We are decaying not due only to miscreant politicians like Bill Clinton or inept leaders like GW Bush, but because of the erosion of faith and morals in the American people. A moral and religious American citizenry would not elect, nor would they endure corrupt politicians for long. In the end, we get what we deserve.
From the OxFord Companion to American Law, edited by Kermit Hall, 2002 Oxford Univ Press,article on “Privacy”, pgs 637-639:
“But the word “Privacy” does not appear in the Constitution.”
But the SCOTUS has used that word in some of it’s rulings, for example: “Griswold vs Connecticut” 1965, with references to the First,Third,Fourth,Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Also in the “Roe vs Wade” 1972, the word was used in the majority opinion over a woman’s use of her body..It was also used in subsequent Supreme Court rulings broadening it’s impact, such as in “Cruzan vs Director” 1990 case which was the right to die case..
Justice Brandeis originally touched on the concept in his dissenting opinion on “Olmstead vs United States”, a 1929 wiretapping case. He said the “Founders conferred, as against the Government, the right to be left alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”
Also there has been 156 instances of electors not voting in accords to the “will of the people” for various reasons.
Also a mob means “3 wolves voting ...” you should know the rest.
A Constitutional, Representative, Federalist Republic which uses democratic means as a way to establish government protects the lambs from the wolves and the central government from the States.
The more we move towards the direct rule of man, laws like illegal immigration will be ignored. Why? Because those that support (Businesses, farmers, the bastardization of the 14th Amendment by man, those who are sympathetic) the illegals will vote in politicians (Democracy) who ignore the law (Constitution). Which would you rather follow, the man or the law specifically spelled out by a Federal/State Constitutions.
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.