What If Democracy Is a Fraud?

Townhall.com ^ | July 24, 2014 | Judge Andrew Napolitano

[Hoosier-Daddy]

De Tocqueville was right.

[Pelham]

“What if you were allowed to vote only because it didn’t make a difference? What if no matter how you voted the elites always got their way?”

Nothing new in California.

We passed Prop 187, the illegal alien law, only to have it killed through the subversive collusion of Judge Marianne Pfaelzer and Governor Gray Davis.

What most do not know is that this collusion permitted Pfaelzer’s decision to stand without it being reviewed by a higher court. So one activist judge overruled the votes of the people of California.

And Prop 187 could gave been appealed to a higher court if Schwarzenegger had moved to do so- but good GOPe hack that he was he didn’t do it.

Next there was Prop 8, the marriage prop, overturned by homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker. Another victory for elites over the majority.

With federal judges voiding the will of California voters, a la raza Democratic Party with a supermajority, a Republican party controlled by the GOPe, and Presidents Bush and Obama refusing to deport illegals, voting in this state is pretty much meaningless.

It has occurred to me that this is how a republic falls apart. Not with a quick collapse but slowly so that people get used to political elites rendering their votes worthless.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

De Tocqueville was right.

[mjp]

What if no matter how you voted the elites always got their way?

When the government has the power to create money out of thin air and to create inflation,and deficits can be financed by the use of that power, the effect is to make government spending free of the will of the citizens and their representatives. For the government is now in a position to finance its expenditures with funds it does not obtain from the people. Even to the extent the government's expenditures have the approval of the citizens and their representatives, the approval is gained fraudulently-it is gained under the delusion that because the expenditures can be financed by inflation they are not at the expense of the citizens.

[nathanbedford]

I am coming increasingly to suspect that the opposition to the Article V movement from the right comes from the NRA. The supporters of the Second Amendment have somehow got it into their heads that an Article V convention would somehow run away and undermine their rights to keep and bear arms just at a time when it looks like the courts are beginning to actually recognize those rights. The Article V movement represents no realistic threat to The Second Amendment. Contrary to an optimistic view of our recent court decisions, that threat exists and it is growing every day quite robustly without the help of a constitutional amendment.

The reaction by supporters of the NRA is understandable but it is both myopic and selfish.

The Bill of Rights consists of more than just the Second Amendment. Every single amendment which go to make up the Bill of Rights is imperiled by our current course of government. It is illusory to believe that the Second Amendment alone can save the rest of our precious legacy which came to us as birthright. We cannot fight a 21st-century government armed with drones, computers, lasers, air power, and robots with sidearms and hope to preserve a decent society, we can only contrive to disintegrate into terrorism.

Worse, the opposition to the Article V movement by the supporters of the Second Amendment leads them to a level of irrationality against which there is no argument which makes any headway because their commitment is entirely emotional. I understand the emotional attachment to the right to keep and bear arms, to protect oneself with self-defense, to be able to protect one's family, to exercise the liberty of a free man. But there is more to a civil society then the right to bear arms, the right to bear arms is neither a substitute for nor a solution to a new dark age.

To ignore the loss of all our rights save the right to keep and bear arms out of fear of losing the right to keep and bear arms is worse than selfish, worse than irrational, it is ultimately self-defeating.

[GeronL]

yeppers

[Mack the knife]

The Yale.edu open courseware includes a semester course by Kagen studying Ancient Greek Civilization. The Athenians instituted a real living breathing democracy. What were its limits?

At one time, they would have a yearly vote to expel someone under penalty of death for one year.

Our Founders knew this, which is why they loathed democracies.

Our founders gave us a representative republic whose power was limited by a constitution. One by one, the limits have been stripped away. The founders were rabidly against “factions (best translated as “special interests”, the largest of which are the current political parties)”. I agree with the Judge that our government is the captive of the “big government party”, with Democrat and Republican wings monopolizing the ballots.

One way to break this monopoly is to institute the “none of the above” rule — in any election, there must be a “none of the above” choice; if it wins a plurality, another election must be held, and the candidates on that ballot are not allowed on the next.

[GraceG]

[ One way to break this monopoly is to institute the “none of the above” rule — in any election, there must be a “none of the above” choice; if it wins a plurality, another election must be held, and the candidates on that ballot are not allowed on the next. ]

I agree 1000% the citizens need a “No Confidence” vote and mechanisms in place in case of No confidence.

Also I think Incumbents should have to earn more than a simple majority each additional term or at least term limis.

Also I think there should be NO federal election where ANY incumbent runs unopposed in a Primary along with closed Primaries.

[Jacquerie]

The legislatures. What is far more important are the commissions.

[Jacquerie]

The courts have undermined, if not destroyed the guarantee of republican government to the states.

Scotus also found that illegal alien mothers can bestow American citizenship, that illegal children must be educated in local public schools, that English only government is unconstitutional.

You are right.

[Political Junkie Too]

Witness what is going on right now in Mississippi.

Just today, the Mississippi Supreme Court just denied again Chris McDaniel's request to inspect the poll books of Cochran-friendly counties, despite the fact that a majority of counties already made those books available.

-PJ

[dalereed]

No damn way!!!

Democracy is 2 wolf’s and one sheep votng on what’s for dinner!

[Mack the knife]

All laws and regulations not put in the consitution have an expiration date no greater than 24 years.

---

While I concur with the “sunset” principle for laws and regulations (i.e., each law or regulation must have an expiration date), you need to look earlier in the process.

Contrary to the Judge’s rant, we are not living today in:
* a representative republic, because most of the protections of the constitution have been stripped away (e.g., by re-interpretation of the ‘interstate commerce’ clause)
* a representative democracy, because most of the restrictions on our freedoms come from regulations, not laws passed by Congress.

Congress only passes about 85 laws per year, yet the bureacracy pumps out over 8500 pages of regulations per year ... which take effect unless both House and Senate agree to set them aside. Thus the “checks and balances” are reversed -— regulations take effect unless both House and Senate agree to change them (as opposed to the Constitutional requirement that the same exact wording of a law must be passed by both House and Senate and signed by the President).

The biggest swindle of the Progressives in the early 1900s was to convice the people that the mere mortals in Congress were not smart enough to pass the necessary laws dealing with “complicated” situations, and that these situations required smarter people to write regulations, find offenders, and haul them in front of administrative judges (other people smarter than ordinary judges); and thus they established the administrative state.

Obama is now demonstrating to the world how this enables the executive branch to act without constraint for the 5 years it takes for a case to finally arrive at the Supreme Court.

One way to re-establish the “checks and balances” is to restore the legislative function exclusively to Congress. No regulation should have the effect of law unless passed by both House and Senate first

[RipSawyer]

“If a Democracy is setup wrong it will quickly slide into a totalitarianism regime.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

There IS NO right way to setup a democracy, that is why the word democracy does not appear in the constitution or the declaration of independence and was never generally used to refer to this country until WWI was called the “war to make the world safe for democracy”. The founders warned against democracy because it ALWAYS degenerates into totalitarianism, the whole idea of democracy is wrong and this is NOT a matter of semantics, a “representative democracy” is NOT the same as a constitutional republic which is the form of government guaranteed by the constitution. We need to stop referring to democracy as if it were something to be desired, it most certainly IS NOT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdS6fyUIklI

[Daffynition]

I’m reading his remarkable clear vision now. :) THX

[Jacquerie]

Unlike almost all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 2A survives because the people are attentive to it. At 1.1 guns per American, the recognition of guns as essential, is well known to even rat politicians, who wisely prefer to not mess with gun control.

IIRC, CN called for widespread gun registration. There has been little compliance, and local law enforcement is reluctant to press the law.

It is a shame that some oppose Article V over irrational fear of losing the 2A.

[Viennacon]

The Founders knew their constitution would fail. Franklin said as much. It had many many safeguards built in, but they anticipated that eventually someone would find a way to circumvent it which is why the 2nd Amendment was given.

As time went on, progressivism has expanded the government, and conservatism has risen as a reactionary force, but one that merely bails some of the water out of the Titanic as it sinks. Today’s liberals are tomorrow’s conservatives.

Great example. Conservatives once railed against divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage. When was the last time you heard about that? Trust me, the ‘conservatives’ of 2040 will be arguing against animal/human marriage by citing the ‘sanctity of gay marriage’.

Antonio Gramsci’s cultural hegemonic theory was what really killed America, because if the institutions of power do not afford you the ability to disorganize and then reorganize society (a la Saul Alinsky) then all you have to do is fundamentally change the institutions of power. Politicize the courts. Hand power from the more alterable elected bodies (congress) to the less alterable bodies (the executive, namely bureaucracy). Force all children into schoolhouses where the curriculum is controlled by progressives. Cede power to more favorable international institutions like the UN.

That is how you circumvent democracy, even in its refined form of a constitutional representative republic.

It is nice to be involved in elections, but at this point it is a formality. Nothing you can do will alter government within the democratic system. If America is to be saved, it will not be by politicians, but by the actions of citizens who do not fear stepping outside the system.

[dforest]

I would like to vote for this man in some capacity.