Walter Williams: America Isn't a Democracy. In Fact, the Founders Feared Democracy

CNS News ^ | January 28, 2020 | Walter E. Williams

[DoughtyOne]

So would you label us a Democracy then?

[traderrob6]

Of course not.

[traderrob6]

So if asked on the street in short form we are simply a “Representative Republic”

[DoughtyOne]

I wasn’t trying to give you a hard time.

Thank you.

[traderrob6]

Good as no offense was taken.

[DoughtyOne]

Great. Take care...

[central_va]

Without the fear of state secession then it really isn’t a republic.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Well worth the read *ping*.

[spintreebob]

Nixon’s Revenue Sharing did more to destroy the checks and balances of the states than anything else.

The Fed can seemingly print and borrow unlimited money. The states can’t. So the states have become whores for the Fed’s money. The voters don’t want half the stuff the states spend on. They would never raise taxes to pay for it. But if they take FREE MONEY from the Feds then they can tell the voters that they have to raise taxes for the matching money needed to get the FREE MONEY.

[Svartalfiar]

The Founders also didn’t have women voting.

They also didn't not have women voting. They left control of who was allowed to vote to the States. Which, it still is today, outside of two restrictions: States can't deny women in general, and they can't set an age restriction over 18.
Back in the day, most States limited eligibility to white, landed males over a certain age. Some places allowed women to vote if they owned land, this was just a rare occurrence as the only women who might have land would be a widow whose husband had no one else to leave the properties, or a daughter with no brothers or other male family for her dying dad to leave it to.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

I have to admit that you are more correct than I, as far as the US Constitution indicating the Founders thoughts on the vote. I had remembered a reference to males, 21 years of age, in terms of voting, but this is only in the 14th Amendment from 1868, so, not the Founders writing.

You made me find the Constitution and read it again, which is not bad. There is, of course, a lot that is not said in such a brief document, such as what is considered the generally obvious. There appears careful use the noun, “person”, preserving sex neutrality, interspersed with “he”, which does not. From what is there, I would need to see other writing to believe that they were not thinking exclusively of men, in these instances.

I would find it hard to believe that the 1868 reference is more restrictive than earlier norms, but this is not the clear reference to the Founder’s intentions that I thought it was.

[Svartalfiar]

interspersed with “he”, which does not. From what is there, I would need to see other writing to believe that they were not thinking exclusively of men, in these instances.

'He' is not solely the masculine pronoun. Proper English (which the Founding Fathers almost definitely followed) dictates that when the pronoun's reference is unknown, multiple with male and females, or used for an unspecified person in general, then the masculine is to be used.


I had remembered a reference to males, 21 years of age, in terms of voting, but this is only in the 14th Amendment from 1868, so, not the Founders writing.

Yup, 14A. And again, this isn't limiting the voting pool, this merely delineates a group that the States cannot block from voting. It basically says that if a State doesn't allow a citizen male over 21 to vote, then their representation is lowered by the same relative amount. I don't know if many States still required property ownership at that point, but do notice that the 14th does NOT require land, so this could have been a point where the voting public grew much larger.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

I thought you were striving for accuracy and understanding. My mistake.

If you think that the Founders were “futurists”, trying to envision a government of women, I think you’re way off base.

There is very much acceptance of the status quo in the document, as I pointed out, in its extreme brevity.

Unfortunately, this leads to manipulative, legalistic twisting, like, “Well, they did NOT say...”

[Leep]

“it would represent a deep betrayal of our founders”

That sounds like the progs alright.

[Leep]

We need Republic Schools.

[Svartalfiar]

If you think that the Founders were “futurists”, trying to envision a government of women, I think you’re way off base.

How do you get that at all, out of what I said? Are you sure you responded to the right post?


Unfortunately, this leads to manipulative, legalistic twisting, like, “Well, they did NOT say...”

What they didn't say is just as important as what they did say, it's not manipulative. The Republic is built off of enumerated powers. If it's NOT written in the Constitution, FedGov doesn't have it. Sure, they've taken many powers they don't have (Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Clinton, Bush, Obama), but that doesn't mean they should have those powers, and it's gonna take a lot to return them to the States/people.

Unfortunately, while Trump's done a lot of good, I don't see him actually putting the FedGov back in it's rightful place. Hell, he has yet to actually reduce the deficit yet... Trump is not a disbeliever in big government.