| Sunday, 19 July 2009 12:14 |
| Quintessential Liberal vs. Extreme Marxist
By JB Williams ©2009 USA Since 52% of American voters were foolish enough to buy the story that Barack Hussein Obama is some sort of “liberal messiah,” I thought it would be interesting to compare the belief systems of America’s father of liberalism and author of our Declaration of Independence, with the Marxist belief system of the false messiah. And since today’s liberals have so much trouble properly interpreting our Founders’ simple message to future generations, I am under no illusion that these facts will carry anymore weight with modern Marxists than Article II – Section I of the Constitution, which clearly states that Barack Obama cannot be President of the United States. But for the rest of America, namely those who have been baffled by decades of leftist balderdash via the NEA’s academia and the state run media complex, a few real facts might help sort things out. “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Just for you leftists out there, what Jefferson was trying to say here is, you can’t be both stupid and free. This is the fly in your ointment friends. You think you can be stupid and irresponsible AND free. But you can’t… You think that freedom belongs to the spineless thief, but it doesn’t. You think you can use a democratic process to force others to accept responsibility for your ignorance, but you can’t. Oh sure, you can cast your vote on this basis and even elect a president and congress, who will seat a Supreme Court on this basis. But in the end, one of two things will happen. Either those who earned the gold you seek to steal, will take their gold and leave you holding your empty sack of broken promises, – or – you will trade your individual freedom for a pittance of “free stuff” from the public trough. You can be stupid, or you can be free, but you can’t be both… In the end, there is no way to be both stupid and free! Jefferson knew this, Obamanation doesn’t. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” This is why Jefferson and fellow Founders designed and gave birth to a Constitutional Representative Republic instead of a “democracy,” and guaranteed every state a “republican” form of government. Their Republic was limited to governance which was “representative” of the people, AND limited to the letter of Constitutional authority. The 10th Amendment says it all… “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government authority over a specific matter, then no such authority exists and any effort by the Fed to step into that territory is simply “unconstitutional.” Yet Obama and the modern “liberal” (aka 21st Century Marxist) believe that there are no such limitations on our federal government and that they are free to “take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent of Americans” on the basis that they won an election by “democratic process.” Their system of government is NOT a Constitutional Republic, but rather Democratic Socialism, in which their ends justify their means and the Constitution is no barrier. “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.” According to Jefferson, but not according to Obama, Pelosi or Reid, and their many minions and international friends, all of whom believe that the sum of good government is to “take from those who have used their freedom well, and redistribute to those who have not.” For modern leftists, there is a good greater than freedom. There is political power, bought with gifts from the public treasury for our nation’s “less fortunate” and paid for by America’s most productive. But unlike today’s faux liberals, Jefferson was THE quintessential liberal, believing in a maximum abundance of individual liberty. In fact, he went so far as to state unequivocally… “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” On the other side of complete individual liberty is anarchy. Yet Jefferson states that he would prefer the inconveniences of too much liberty, as opposed to too little. By today’s perverted definitions, this would undoubtedly make Jefferson a quintessential libertarian, not a modern liberal. “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” Still, over the last hundred years or so, self-proclaimed liberals have built a political dynasty on the unparalleled practice of wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. There’s no special interest or minority group they haven’t exploited, and no social engineering program they haven’t bankrupted. Despite the very real fact that our federal government has never touched an issue it didn’t wreck, or established a budget it didn’t bust, the left has used its new power to confiscate control of banking, investment, lending, energy, auto manufacturing and individual income. Next they seek control of health care and insurance, all under the false pretense of taking care of the people while simply stockpiling their own personal power over those people. Jefferson would obviously, support no such thing. “Information is the currency of democracy.” I have always found this to be one of Jefferson’s most interesting quotes. Why would someone so clearly opposed to pure democracy, make this statement? In further studying Jefferson’s many writings, I discovered what Jefferson meant by this statement. As our nation’s most well-studied Founder and certainly our most prolific, Jefferson was clearly a lover of information – history in particular. As a result, he was right over and over again, including here… information is indeed the currency of democracy. He who controls the flow and content of information can thereby control public opinion, and therefore, the decisions made by democratic process. This indeed makes “information” the most important “currency” to any democratic society. Hence, the state run media complex. And again, Jefferson makes his point… “It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.” Today’s self-styled liberal believes in concepts that are historically proven to be wrong. Communism and Socialism have failed miserably everywhere on earth they have been tried. Still, the modern liberal believes it can work. That’s because they have to believe it to justify robbing their fellow citizens of the rightful earnings. It would be better for them to believe nothing at all, than to believe that which is clearly false. But doing so would not serve their agenda. Even after congressional leftists bankrupted Fannie and Freddie, forcing every homeowner into falling property values, investors into bad investments supported by bad mortgages, falling markets that threaten the US dollar and the future of the free market that made America the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth, the left remains determined to stick with their failed belief system. It has never worked anywhere on earth, but they are married to it just the same. “Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.” Obama has appointed more unconstitutional Czars in six months than the Soviet Union did in thirty years. They are not accountable to the people, the states, or even congressional oversight. They are appointed minions accountable only to the dictator-in-chief. Yet… “Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” America’s day of reckoning for decades of ignorance, apathy and arrogance has arrived. “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” There are none more ignorant than those who refuse to see… or learn from history. They are doomed to learn the hard way, again and again! Jefferson is America’s quintessential liberal and he had absolutely NOTHING in common with Barack Obama or any other modern liberal. In fact, quite the contrary. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Under the Obama administration, these two statements from Jefferson would qualify Jefferson as a “right-wing extremist” and “potential domestic terrorist,” according to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security. That’s because Barack Obama’s belief system is based upon the concepts of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. He takes his orders from ACORN, represented by the Congressional Black Caucus, established by card carrying member of the Communist Party, John Conyers. His entire agenda was written by the Democratic Socialists of America, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, established by card carrying member of the Socialist Party, Bernie Sanders Jefferson, like every other Founding Father, is rolling over in his grave at what now passes for “liberal” in America. Not one Founding Father would stand for what is happening to this wonderful country today, nor would any call themselves “liberal” by today’s perverted definition. The people running Washington DC today are not American. They belong in prison, not in power. But instead, on July 16, 2009, two days before the writing of this column, Obama’s Department of Justice, headed by Obama’s man Eric Holder, issued a written threat to the state of Tennessee, signed by Assistant Director of the ATF Carson W. Carroll. In that letter, Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms stated the following… The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 (“Act”), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply. A full copy of the ATF letter can be found here – http://www.tfaonline.org/downloads/ATFfirearmsfreedomact.pdf Even though the Tennessee state legislature, through its proper course and authority, passed both a Tenth Amendment bill reminding the Obama administration that it is a sovereign state with constitutional rights, and that the federal government exists at the pleasure of the people and the states, not the other way around, and a Second Amendment affirmation in H.B. 1796, Obama does not see it that way. At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say- “Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.” But despite the fact that the Tennessee legislature passed and ratified H.B. 1796, the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act of 2009, securing the rights of firearms owners and dealers in the state of Tennessee, Obama’s ATF believes that “federal laws supersede state laws.” This concept could be applied to any law in any state, of course. It is NOT true however… The US Constitution supersedes both federal and state laws. Neither legislature can pass laws at odds with constitutional text. Under the US Constitution, the vast power is entrusted to the people and their states, not the Fed. (See Amendment X of the US Constitution) — Federal laws trump state laws only in the unbridled imaginations of leftists and federal law makers. But only because both act as though the Constitution no longer exists. For this reason, I share another of Jefferson’s sentiments… “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” American citizens have come to fear their tyrannical federal government. Decades of leftist fiscal insanity in Washington DC have left the nation in financial ruin. The moral relativity of the left has shoved the nation into an immoral abyss and the day of reckoning has arrived. The people must organize with local and state leaders in their individual states. According to the US Constitution, the Fed exists and serves at the pleasure of the people and their respective states. These principles either stand, or everything collapses. See Tenth Amendment action reports here – http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/18/the-battle-begins-atf-vs-the-constitution/ “Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.” JB Williams
|
Browsing Posts tagged republic
Seeking redress from Congress.
This is excellent – if signing petitions might help, this is one to sign!
Here is the petition text; two clicks to sign it:
To the United States Congress, United States Supreme Court and President of the United States:
Whereas, the First Amendment guarantees our right to Petition for Redress of Grievances, and
Whereas, the Senators and Representatives, all executives and judicial officers of the United States are bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and
Whereas, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, and
Whereas, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws, and
Whereas, Article 1 of the Constitution prohibits both the federal government and the states from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, and
Whereas, the Supreme Court has insisted that “a Bill of Attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both”, and
Whereas, “All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void” (Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)) and,
Whereas, We the People, have been betrayed through treachery and breach of allegiance, by those entrusted with the responsibility to safe guard our liberty and the United States Constitution,
We the People, in seeking Redress of Grievances, as is our right under Amendment I of the United States Constitution, ask this question of each branch of Federal Government:
“Where in the Constitution do you find authorization for each and all of the following?”
1. The redistribution of property by force and subterfuge; and the unequal application of tax laws amounting to punitive action against certain groups of American People and providing favored status to other groups
2. A paper money system that is morally and economically equivalent to counterfeiting
3. Willful and purposeful devaluation and destruction of American currency
4. Deploying military to fight undeclared wars
5. Targeting and labeling law-abiding American citizens as domestic terrorists
6. Declarations that disagreeing with policy is unpatriotic or disloyal to our country
7. Intrusions into the privacy of law-abiding American citizens
8. Perpetual massive indebtedness to foreign countries
9. Infringement upon the rights of the People to keep and bear arms through oppressive regulation and taxation designed for the very purpose of infringement
10. Passing laws and taxes without deliberation and without reading the legislation; said action is tantamount to the American People not having any representation
11. Enacting ex post facto laws and Bills of Attainder
12. Granting Constitutional rights and privileges to illegal aliens and prisoners of war
13. Funding mercenary organizations that engage in voter fraud and paid harassment of law abiding American citizens
14. Maintaining and deploying armies in peace time on United States soil
15. Unprecedented and arbitrary federal power, through the United States Treasury, for government intervention into, control of, and confiscation of, private property, private industry including but not limited to banking, insurance, manufacturing, farming and other sectors of the private economy (current and proposed)
16. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law (proposed)
17. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law (proposed)
18. Acts regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press (proposed)
We the People of the United States of America, who cherish liberty, taking into our most serious consideration, the best means of assuring our continued constitutional rights of self governance, as our ancestors in like cases have done, for asserting and vindicating our rights and liberties, declare,
That the citizens of the Unites States of America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the United States Constitution, Supreme Court case law and the Federalist Papers, have the following Rights:
• We are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and we have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of these without our consent.
• The three branches of the United States government derive their just powers solely from the consent of the governed.
• We the people have the right and the obligation to alter or abolish any government that becomes destructive of the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator and rights codified in the United States Constitution.
• We have the right peaceably to assemble, consider our grievances, petition the three branches of the Federal Government; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory and proclamations, defamatory declarations, and commitments for the same, are illegal.
• We the People of the United States of America, do claim, demand, and insist on, as our indubitable rights and liberties that the federal government must be answerable and accountable to the people; which cannot be legally taken from us, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without our own consent, and said consent has never been given.
In the course of our inquiry, we find numerous infringements and violations of the foregoing rights; which demonstrate systemic corruption formed to subvert and destroy our constitutional republic and to enslave the American people.
We submit this Petition for Redress of Grievances in an ardent desire that precious liberty be restored to ourselves and preserved for future generations of Americans.
This Petition for Redress of Grievances serves as notice and demand by the American People to the federal government, as our agent: 1) To cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of the constitutionally delegated powers; 2) To formally and publicly recognize the natural and Constitutional rights of the American People in a manner appropriate to each branch of government (resolution, proclamation, statement); 3) To answer, point by point the question contained herein; 4) To honor your oaths to support the Constitution or resign immediately from your positions.
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved.
Following is the complete article from Original URL
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
A Democracy
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature–the elective body there being the House of Commons–and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled “Constitutions.” Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts–next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.
It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his “Notes On The State of Virginia” written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . .” (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called “Constitution”–in reality a mere Act of that body:
“All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.”
This topic–the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority–is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).
The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the “excesses of democracy” The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America–the people at large of that period–who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the “excesses of democracy,” were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
“The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period.” (Text per original.)
Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
“Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.”
It is correct to say that in any Democracy–either a Direct or a Representative type–as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949–indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.
Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only “just powers” (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.
A Republic
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment–with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.
The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention–especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose–to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government–of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ “Autobiography” commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
“By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act.”
Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the “Essex Result” (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called “Constitutions” adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully – it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only “just powers,” limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the “snob-rule” of a governing Elite and the “mob-rule” of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights–to endanger the people’s liberties.
With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here–as follows:
“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” (Emphasis added.)
It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label “Republic” has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused–for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling–having essential characteristics of–a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to “the ancient republics,” but in any such connection the term was used loosely–by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy–often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his “Thoughts on Government” and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.
Our Forefathers fought against the British for one reason, when they started a revolution. Taxation without representation.
Here we are 300 years later. No one really owns property in this country. Your property taxes are a first mortgage, quit paying, and your living on the street. Quit filing taxes as I have for the last 5 years, and guess what, you get put on a special list, for immediate prosecution of a federal crime.
My point being is, how does it feel to be a slave??????
Are you angry, upset, going to keep paying, so an illegal immigrant can use your money to live here, expecting the same social benefits, you are supposed to receive. Or better yet, wait for your local legislator to extend the retirement age, so that when you are 99, you might receive a dollar. All the while these same people you and I vote into office have the best medical care, a retirement system, which allows them to quit working at age 58, and then of course lobby for the corporate sponsors, who got them on the payroll to begin with.
Do you really believe you are free to express your view at a political rally????? Try it, hope you like the jail cell provided for you, and the corn dog lunch.
Andrew Jackson gave a speech, on the porch of his house, talking to his friends and neighbors, on a 4th of July, about the idea created in the country’s political process and life. He stated to his peers, that bow for the first time in the world, the idea of free thinking people in a country was totally new to the human experience. He then told his peers to do just that, become free thinkers. I am truly a free thinker, and a Jeffersonian radical anarchist. Oh my, anarchist, does that mean guns and bombs, no not at all. What it means is the least government is the best government.
Like the sanctuary in Atlas Shrugged, I am looking for that valley, with a whole other bunch of free thinkers. If you know where it is, please give me a call………. Thank you for your time
