E.J. should learn to act like a man. If I were going to judge the E.J. book by the cover, I might say that is a girly-man fagboy. HMMM...
Posted on 01/02/2017 1:20:14 PM PST by Kaslin
Trump was correct - illegal invaders "voted" in great numbers. That is treason against our Republic, one that Obama gave the green light to (on camera) on the eve of the election.
E.J. should learn to act like a man. If I were going to judge the E.J. book by the cover, I might say that is a girly-man fagboy. HMMM...
VERY difficult to get rid of the EV process. Ain’t gonna happen. Sorry Dionne
Would've worked, except most of the "undocumented Democrats" live in coastal areas and the Electoral College erased the e3ffects of that strategy. That's why Obama was sending tens of thousands of Central Americans and Syrians to the middle of the country but their flood was incomplete at this point.
What if we had an answer on the “democracy/republic” question from an original source who actually lived through the Revolutionary Period? What if that source also provided the Framers’ rationale for the underlying principle and the reason for Benjamin Franklin’s purported response to the question?
John Adams’ son, John Quincy, was 9 when the Declaration of Independence was written, 20 when the Constitution was framed, and from his teen years, served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive on the subject at hand.
In 1839, JQA was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the “Jubilee” Address honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. He delivered that lengthy discourse which should be read by all who love liberty, for it traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government. His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source for understanding the kind of government the Founders formed than those of recent historians and politicians. He addresses the ideas of “democracy” and “republic” throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:
“Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.
“It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-
“1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.
“2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitled them.
“3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
“4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.
“5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.
“6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.
“7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.
“8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.
“9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.
“10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.
“11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.
“And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide.”
In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
“But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained.” </div>
A month or so before the 2016 election, these same Democrats and media talking heads were touting the Electoral College as vital firewall to insulate America from the scourge of Donald Trump populism.
As usual, where they stand depends on where they sit and this political season was one of political musical chairs.
Democrats: “We could have several hybrids of how presidents are elected. If the actual vote does not match the polling data, we can assume that the election was hacked and just go by the polling data. And with several methods to choose from, we can just go with the one that favors the Democrat candidate after the election is over. We could have endless recounts until we get what we want. If the Democrat does not win, we get one do over. And if the outcome still does not work out in favor of the Democrat, we can throw a hissy fit and whine about how the winner is illegitimate, and even advocate for assassination.”
....abolition of the electoral college, and the substitution of the presidential election on the basis of a straight popular vote.....
Translation: Let the huge number of illegals and La Raza members in California decide our Presidential elections! NO THANKS!!!!
And the name of the “prestige media”should be changed to the “lying press”!!!!
Because the United States was formed as a union of states (as the name reminds us), whereas states and counties were not formed as unions of smaller jurisdictions. Anything else I can help you with, Ms. Dionne?
If they want to get rid of the ec then get rid of the senate as well. Nothing less democratic than giving states like Rhode Island the same power as Texas, say.
Liberals claim to be believers in “majority rule” democracy.
But then the hypocrites demand that we, the majority, change our traditions, culture, language and way of life to accommodate every whining minority who claims to be offended by America or Americans.
A minute percentage of people are sexual perverts, cross dressers and gender benders but liberals demand that we all change the rules to accommodate them.
The majority of Americans are still Christians but liberals demand that we change our culture to accommodate the minority who claim to be offended by our religion.
Illegals fly Mexican flags but liberals demand that we remove the American flag whenever an illegal claims it offends them.
That's exactly why Obama has planted seed groups of muslims, Africans, "Dreamers" and other illegals in small population red states and swing states.
Democrats know it will take only a relatively small number of these new democrats to move the demographics in selected states to the democrat column.
Sitting on their brains.
Good luck with that constitutional amendment. I’m sure they’ll be able to find 30+ states who will volunteer to turn over all power to NY, CA, TX and FL.
Real soon.
There would be little reason to visit more than 4 or 5 states with the largest populations.
MANY issues that affect other states would go unaddressed.
Exactly.
The federal government is a creation of the states, not the other way around. The EC is how the states select the executive of the federal gov.
The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states whereas the House is the more democratic with representatives directly elected by the people. The House represents the people, the Senate represents the states (until the amendment that established direct election of Senators. Booooo!)
The electoral system is a safeguard against the very elitism this guy so loves.
Ironic that E. J. Dionne should be calling for a “straight popular vote.” Doesn’t he realize it will hurt the Democrats if only straights are allowed to vote?
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.