[nathanbedford]

Moments before this article concerning Mark Levin's views on populism appeared, I posted this reply:

Actually the whole structure of the Constitution was designed to frustrate populism which the framers thought of as mob rule.

Originally, the only direct voice of the people was to be had in the House of Representatives, the Senate being elected by state legislatures. The Supreme Court was not elected at all and the President of the United States was not directly elected either but electors were elected who under the Constitution were expected to exercise their judgment in passing on the populist will.

It is the genius of the Constitution to recognize the popular will but to confine its scope by a system of checks and balances and separation of powers which were frankly designed to frustrate the popular will. That is why we call it a Republic and not a democracy.

I don't will think you believe in the absolute power of the populist will. Are you ready to surrender your Second Amendment rights to bear arms to the Democrats when they gain a majority? I am not willing to surrender my First Amendment rights to Donald Trump if he should have populist wind at his back.

[Utmost Certainty]

The 2A is dead if Hillary gets into office and installs a Merrick Garland to the USSC. And she will try to ride a wave of populism into office just like Obama did.

[grey_whiskers]

The framers also warned against "factions" which map fairly well onto today's political parties. Populism is a reaction against the excesses of factions.

Incidentally, when do we get to repeal the 16th, 17th, 19th, and 26th?

[Lakeshark]

I am not willing to surrender my First Amendment rights to Donald Trump if he should have populist wind at his back.

It was Cruz, not Trump who came closer to taking away first amendment rights.

When he blamed Trump for the violence in Chicago, he sided with the totalitarian left that actually wants to take free speech away.

I guess you forgot that.

[Mensius]

Actually the whole structure of the Constitution was designed to frustrate populism which the framers thought of as mob rule.

So don't call it populism (which I agree with you), call it common sense. The "elites" have sold out this entire nation. The serfs are kinda pissed. Sorry that that abrades your sensitivities.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Moments before this article concerning Mark Levin's views on populism appeared, I posted this reply:

Actually the whole structure of the Constitution was designed to frustrate populism which the framers thought of as mob rule.

Originally, the only direct voice of the people was to be had in the House of Representatives, the Senate being elected by state legislatures. The Supreme Court was not elected at all and the President of the United States was not directly elected either but electors were elected who under the Constitution were expected to exercise their judgment in passing on the populist will.

It is the genius of the Constitution to recognize the popular will but to confine its scope by a system of checks and balances and separation of powers which were frankly designed to frustrate the popular will. That is why we call it a Republic and not a democracy.

I don't will think you believe in the absolute power of the populist will. Are you ready to surrender your Second Amendment rights to bear arms to the Democrats when they gain a majority? I am not willing to surrender my First Amendment rights to Donald Trump if he should have populist wind at his back.

Preach it!

[867V309]

I am not willing to surrender my First Amendment rights to Donald Trump if he should have populist wind at his back.

Where did that come from? Where and when did Trump ever threaten 1st amendment rights?

[Travis McGee]

I agree with that. But at the moment, the GOPes have just become Rat collaborators, playing the "Washington Generals" to the Rat "Globetrotters," to use Rush's analogy. They are happy to play patsy, but we are the rubes really being played by both the Rats and GOPes.

But no matter if President Sanders packs the SCOTUS with Ginzbergs, we can still read the plain English of the BOR, and any attempts to forcibly interrupt the first amd will be checked by the 2nd. No cabal of black-robed tyrants is going to define me out of my God-given freedom. I can read the Constitution without interpretation, when it comes to large issues like speech and guns.

The way it SHOULD work, Congress would be supreme, but they have abdicated.

[Bishop_Malachi]

“Actually the whole structure of the Constitution was designed to frustrate populism which the framers thought of as mob rule.

Originally, the only direct voice of the people was to be had in the House of Representatives, the Senate being elected by state legislatures. The Supreme Court was not elected at all and the President of the United States was not directly elected either but electors were elected who under the Constitution were expected to exercise their judgment in passing on the populist will.

It is the genius of the Constitution to recognize the popular will but to confine its scope by a system of checks and balances and separation of powers which were frankly designed to frustrate the popular will. That is why we call it a Republic and not a democracy.

I don’t will think you believe in the absolute power of the populist will. Are you ready to surrender your Second Amendment rights to bear arms to the Democrats when they gain a majority? I am not willing to surrender my First Amendment rights to Donald Trump if he should have populist wind at his back.”

The problem with this line of thought, however, is in this.....what if the threat to liberty doesn’t come from “the mob”, but instead it comes from a group of oligarchs? So far we’ve seen federally-mandated health insurance and gay-marriage imposed - not by popular will- but by 5-out-of-9 Supreme Court Justices.

It seems that the threat to liberty can come from both ends, namely too much democracy AND too much insulation from democracy.

[odawg]

“Actually the whole structure of the Constitution was designed to frustrate populism which the framers thought of as mob rule.”

The structure of the Constitution was designed to frustrate tyranny through the separation of powers.

Voting was restricted because the framers were aware that populations could be bought with government largess.

Trump voters are not the ones with hands out to the government.

Since when has orderly voting in presidential primaries become mob rule? Is the test for mob rule whenever the vote goes against your preference? Who has decreed that Trump winning elections is proof of mob rule? When Reagan won in two landslides, reflecting the will of the people (populism), was that a bad thing?

“I don’t will think you believe in the absolute power of the populist will.”

So who will appoint themselves to tell the electorate their voice should be ignored? The Establishment has already beat you to it.

“I am not willing to surrender my First Amendment rights to Donald Trump if he should have populist wind at his back.”

That is BS. Trump is 69 years old. What makes you think that he would be set on destroying the Bill of Rights? History teaches that obsessive would be tyrants start out very young to accomplish their designs on society, such as the age profile of Cruz.

[the_doc]

You took the words right out of my mouth. Our Framers hated democracy. They feared that democracy would destroy us. (One merely has to Google their many, many negative comments about democracy to appreciate the fact of their concerns.)

It goes without saying that we need to close our borders. (Trump and Cruz would both do this, of course.) If we don't recover nationalism, we are doomed.

OTOH, patriotism is no guarantee that we will not ruin ourselves through stupid politics. (Many of our most ardent patriots are ignoramuses. A couple of years ago, I met a redneck Democrat who loved Obama--and he explained that the main reason why he liked Obama so much is because Obama is so patriotic, so pro-military, and so pro-firearms.)

[BAN-ONE]

Every now and then, the “mob” gets it right.

(Like in the old 1930 something Frankenstein movie)

The citizens righted a great wrong once they figured out what the doctor was up to.

[FreedomPoster]

>>I am not willing to surrender my First Amendment rights to Donald Trump if he should have populist wind at his back.

Who has suggested that you should, should that come to pass?

[Baldwin77]

Wasn’t it Ted Cruz just one week ago that stomped on the 1st Amendment - apparently Cruz has the right to say what he wants to at his rallies, but Donald Trump does not.

[enumerated]

First of all, I love Mark Levin. Years ago, I adopted his use of the term “Statist”, because it is the best “-ist” name yet for describing those who prescribe big overreaching government. Big overreaching government is exactly what the constitution was intended to protect us against.

Other “-ist” names, communist, socialist, populist, nationalist, protectionist, even capitalist (especially when prefixed with the word “crony”), are bald attempts to describe something wrong, something anti liberty, something that in one way or another requires a transfer of power and control to central government, a loss of liberty. Unfortunately, these names become blurry and vague from overuse and misapplication.

IMHO, only Statist and perhaps Constitutionalist remain clear and useful as terms to describe political movements that promote a bigger overreaching central government, and abrogation of the constitution. I largely thank Levin for coining these terms or at least keeping these terms alive.

Having said all that, and having listened to Levin’s piece, I remain unconvinced regarding whether a) the agrarian movement begat the populist movement, or the populist movement caused nationalism, which begat progressivism, socialism, etc.

I don’t doubt the movements have common elements or common champions or that one followed the other or influenced the other. I simply doubt the usefulness of conflating them and creating the tautology of “Trump is popular there for a populist, wants America first, therefore nationalist, wants free but fair trade, therefore protectionist, therefore progressive, therefore what, socialist? These terms are too hackneyed so I don’t buy the guilt by association.

Levin’s most compelling points are made without the use of these terms: Trump wants to force Apple to move manufacturing back to USA, by what power? Trump wants to slap a 45% tarrif on imports.

I wish Trump would talk about lowering corporate taxes and eliminating punitive regulations (which he plans to do) rather than import taxes, as a way of rebuilding manufacturing base. I wish he would say a bunch of conservative things Ted Cruz says.

Unfortunately, the left has successfully corrupted the language with a PC culture wherein they get to dictate what is OK to say out loud. This means conservative ideas and principles will be understood as racism, selfishness, bigotry, hate and xenophobia. Defense of liberty is seen as lack of compassion for fellow man. Until this PC poisoning of the language is addressed, no outspoken conservative can be elected.