Posted on 09/17/2023 9:45:47 PM PDT by DeathBeforeDishonor1
Yes, the Constitution puts “Mob Rule” at risk too.
“...you can’t spell ignorance without “C-N-N.”
That’s a great line.
Here’s just a bit about the esteemed professors.
An Op-Ed co-written last Friday by two American Jewish professors has stirred Internet controversy, with the focus largely on their use of four words: “We are lifelong Zionists.”
Professors Steven Levitsky and Glen Weyl began their Washington Post Op-Ed with those words...
and
Professor Daniel Ziblatt Named New Director of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies
Were not a democracy.... maybe they should actually read the document.
Translate: we’re losing, so we must destroy everything to ‘save it’.
We’re also not a democracy, we’re a Constitutional Republic where 51% don’t get to be a mob that steamrolls the other 49%.
The moment I started to read I knew that the authors had to be deracinated Jews. Livitsky and Ziblatt are no different from the Soviet’s Zinoviev and Kamenev. They are of the tradition and history of Jewry, a people that feels impelled to change the status quo no matter where in the world they reside. Incredibly, they have now begun to infect Israel itself.
You must of studied logic with Jen and aoc.
Interestingly, the U.S. was designed to be an oligarchy ........
..
.
indirect election of the President by electors who are appointed through acts of state legislatures.
\/
Ya, like that makes sence ?
You contradict yourself in one post.
At least you kept Adams name out of your filthy lie hole.
Interestingly, the U.S. was designed to be an oligarchy ........
..
.
indirect election of the President by electors who are appointed through acts of state legislatures.
/\
So which ?
An aristocracy ?
Or a representative constitutional Republic ?
Can’t be both.
Spit.
“Steven Levitsky” and “Daniel Ziblatt”.
The 2023 topics from the Harvard keyword, sorted:
This whole bit about being "outdated" is just viewing through the lens of Marxian "progressivism." If the Constitution seems like it's against democracy, it's because it is against democracy, and deliberately so - democracy is simply mob rule.
Democrat voters are a mob. Democrat politicians are the mob.
The Biggest Threat to Democracy Is the GOP Stealing the Next Election
The Atlantic | 7.9.2021 | Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (Harvard Profs)
Posted on 7/11/2021, 2:23:32 PM by libh8er
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3975214/posts
<>The Electoral College was the Founders’ method of ensuring that states with small populations would have an equal say in choosing the leader of the country.<>
Nonsense.
The purpose of the EC was to elect an endless succession of men equal in character, discernment, judgement and patriotism to George Washington.
This is why most states only allowed landowners to vote in the early days of this country. It’s also why most of the early states didn’t have a popular vote for Presidential electors, either.
Boy, my neo aristocracy thread must have been over target
You and others of the narrative control doughnut cubicle seem to be sitting and spinning
and spinning
and spinning
and spinning
.
/-)
Twist those pretzels trans boys trans girls trans Rinos.
Uh … whut?
In a way, they are right. The word “democracy” is not used a single time in the Constitution, because the founders knew a democracy was the worst of all forms of government.
A republic is "a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people."
An oligarchy is simply a "form of government in which the supreme power is placed in a few hands."
Now, historically, during colonial America, there were numerous restrictions on just who had the power to vote and choose one's representatives. "Democracy" was considered a pejorative, associated with mob rule: by and large, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, only white men who owned property could vote (and in some states, there were still religious tests as well).
It's also interesting that cuz1961 said the following in post #47: "At least you kept Adams name out of your filthy lie hole." Why? Because Adams in no way favored the enfranchisement of additional classes of voters:
From John Adams to James Sullivan, 5-26-1776: "Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open So fruitfull a Source of Controversy and Altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the Qualifications of Voters. There will be no End of it. New Claims will arise. Women will demand a Vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their Rights not enough attended to, and every Man, who has not a Farthing, will demand an equal Voice with any other in all Acts of State. It tends to confound and destroy all Distinctions, and prostrate all Ranks, to one common Levell. "
And, just three days later, from John Adams to Benhamin Hichborn, 5-29-1776: "How the Representatives will be Settled I cannot guess. But I really hope they will not attempt any material Alteration in the Qualification of Voters. This will open a Door for endless disputes, and I am much afraid for numberless Corruptions."
Based on available historical statistics, approximately 44,000 votes were counted during the first presidential election, relative to a total population of nearly three million (or 2.4 million, if you discount the slave population). If that seems low to you, that's because it was by design (because of the states casting electoral votes at the time, only 6 of them did it through any form of popular vote; Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina did not have any vote for presidential electors whatsoever).
It was a republican form of government where those eligible to participate tended to be those of a particular class and a particular character. Allowing those outside of that class and character to participate would have been anathema to many of the Founders, because — given human nature — it would only lead to dissension. And can you blame them?
In other words, a republic wherein those who had power were few in number relative to the populace at large, and were practically all from the same type of individual. An oligarchic republic, if you will.
(Now we have an oligarchic democracy in practical terms, but that's neither here nor there...)
Based on available historical statistics, approximately 44,000 votes were counted during the first presidential election, relative to a total population of nearly three million (or 2.4 million, if you discount the slave population). If that seems low to you, that's because it was by design (because of the states casting electoral votes at the time, only 6 of them did it through any form of popular vote; Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina did not have any vote for presidential electors whatsoever).
There were only ten (10) states participating in the election. New York was in a state of political conflict following ratification and failed to select any electors. North Carolina (November 21, 1789) and Rhode Island (May 29, 1790) were not yet in the constitutional union. Washington was elected unanimously — 10-0.
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790m-02.pdf
The first census of 1790 recorded a total population of 3,893,635 exclusive of territories. Previous State enumerations had been reported from 1782-1785.
The census was not conducted in Vermont until 1791, after that state's admission to the Union, March 4, 1791. From 1777 until early 1791, Vermont was a de facto independent country.
Vermont reported a total of 85,539 with 16 slaves. 16 free blacks were reported in error as slaves.
North Carolina reported a total of 393,751 with 100,752 slaves.
Rhode Island reported a total of 68,825 with 948 slaves.
New York reported a total of 340,120 with 21,324 slaves.
The total slave population was reported as 694,280.
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.
