Where Is Our Republic?

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

– United States Constitution Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1.

Our Founding Fathers agreed to a Republican form of Government for this young upstart nation vice a Democracy for many reasons, among which, as James Madison said “A pure democracy is unwieldy, dangerous in its passion, and subject to mob rule thereby lending itself to instability and violence. Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

In a Republic, the majority may never have complete control over the minority. The rights of the minority are protected by the checks and balances built into the Republics by-laws. One of the checks and balances our Constitution provides was in how or country was represented at the Federal level. The members of the House of Representatives were elected by the people of the respective districts, the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of each of the several States. One chamber was for the people and one chamber for the States and the President was elected by a majority vote of the electors of the several States. This ensured that the rights, needs and desires of the PEOPLE and the STATES were represented at the Federal level.

Since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted to the Constitution, the voice of the States has been taken away. The Checks and balances put into place by our founding fathers have been removed and our form of governance has been whittled away to an unwieldy Democracy. The people vote for our President, the people vote for our Representatives and the people vote for the Senators. Fifty-one percent of the country now has complete control over the other 49 percent. Look back at the history of our nation, prior to the adopting of the 17th Amendment things were pretty smooth, the People and the States had to agree in order for legislation to pass both houses. Now the People have to agree with the People, which ever side has 51 percent will usually win. I am well aware of the Senate 60 vote filibuster issue, but I contend it is merely a matter of time before Harry Reid tries to change that. The House has already all but eliminated any input from the minority party, I don’t expect the Senate to be far behind.

In order to reacquire the promise of Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution, this American believes the road starts with repealing the 17th Amendment.

Written by: DJ


34 Responses to “Where Is Our Republic?”

  1. 2 March 2009 at 15:22

    Please don’t take offense, but I feel that this video is a bit trivializing to the actual truth. I think it is safe to say that the US is neither a Democracy or a Republic, but more a Polyarchy. A republic implies the people have control of their state, while in fact we are disillusioned to believe that our votes matter. There is no way for the working class to advance into leadership because they are suppressed by the propaganda of the elites. I know you feel a stigma towards Socialism, but are you aware of why the stigma against socialism was created? It has little to do with Russia, and much more to do with a means to demonize the working class when they begin to organize and gain power.

    I know you are an individualist and are for minimizing a collective government. I have no intention of arguing this point, but take a minute to watch this YouTube video on Polyarchy. It may give you a slightly different perspective on matters.

  2. 2 DJ
    2 March 2009 at 21:55


    Our country was founded as a Republic NOT a Democracy, a Polyarchy, Oligarchy or any other form of government. Our Constitution guarantees us a Republican form of Government. If the people desire to change our form of government, we are empowered to do just that, it is not just written, but commanded in our Declaration of Independence. I am one who believes the rule of law means something. I believe our Constitution means something and I am sick and tired of my rights and property being taken away for the “collective”. That is not what this country was founded on. We are a Capitalist Republic. We became a super power in less than 150 years, our economy was the envy of the rest of the world-hell, even during this economic free fall we are in, the dollar is still used to hedge and prop up other other currencies. The United States of America is supposed to be a free country with a free enterprise capitalist economic system. I refuse to let the form of government our founding fathers fought and die for wither away because it “feels better” to be Socialist and let big daddy gub’mint take care of each of us.

    Regarding your video, call it what you want, if it ain’t a Republican form of Government, it does not belong in the United States of America.

  3. 2 March 2009 at 22:32

    No offense taken. But, polyarchy is a “rule of many” when broken down and is specifically stated to be a “a rule of 3 or more.”

    But all of that is not even the matter here. The article is written about what the US Government was designed to be. As DJ points out above, the Constitution specifically calls out what type of government the United States of America was to be.

    As the main article points out, we have drifed from that form of government. Maybe we are a polyarchy. Maybe we are a full democracy. Maybe we are an oligarchy. But as DJ so eloquently pointed out… and I will quote for truth.

    Regarding your video, call it what you want, if it ain’t a Republican form of Government, it does not belong in the United States of America.

  4. 3 March 2009 at 14:21

    I understand where you are both going with this, but I still disagree. I would argue that the the US government was a Polyarchy from day 1. The text written in the original constitution seems very carefully worded in order to ensure that the rich stay in power, while the poor stay out. Arguing this point would be extremely time consuming for both of us because neither would convince the other of their position.

    As for the US becoming a superpower … I think you are missing many important elements of why the US became a superpower. The most important element is its global positioning. The fact that the USA is so far from Europe and Asia, it has been a difficult target. Sharing its borders with Canada (the 51st state) and Mexico (the dirty neighbor), the US has lived a quiet life. Lets also keep in mind that the US has gotten rich of the rest of the worlds misery, which has helped it solidify its position as public enemy #1 around the world. Even Europeans consider the USA a bigger threat than Al Qaeda, and they are supposed to be our allies.

  5. 5 DJ
    5 March 2009 at 15:10


    I suggest you read the Federalist papers. They very clearly layout what form of government we were to have, how it was to pay for itself, and who was to represent the people and the States. One quick example, the Congress was to be in session at least once a year. The reason for this was to allow our elected representatives to have time to tend their fields or operate whatever business they had “back home”. Our Congress was not designed to be a 24/7/365 monstrosity, it was supposed to be a part time job, that paid little and nobody really wanted, but performed out of a sense of duty to their country. Hell, during the first couple Presidential elections, none of those that received electoral votes “ran” for office. It was very much frowned upon if one desired power. A far cry fronm what we have today.

    If one is so inclined, the Constitution can be turned upside down and read through “squintee” eyes to achieve what ever form of govenrment you want to read, precisley WHY Article Four Section Four Clause One was inserted, if you honestly beleive a Polyarchy was defined in our Constituton, PLEASE provide your eveidence to support “…text written in the original constitution seems very carefully worded in order to ensure that the rich stay in power, while the poor stay out.”

  6. 6 March 2009 at 01:48

    I am actually kind of offended that you have put me in a box where you think I am not open to overturning my current beliefs. This is the difference between many others out there and myself – I am fully willing to change my beliefs permitting that you provide me the evidence to do just that.

    If you can fully explain how our Constitution keeps the rich in power and the poor out, please do so. The Constitution is a relatively small document, so it shouldn’t take up much of your time to find these excerpts.

  7. 10 March 2009 at 14:16

    Sorry for the long delay, its been a rough few weeks. I think you misunderstood what I had in mind when I said “carefully worded”. There is nothing wrong with the document itself, the document clearly lays out a Republic. Its Judicial structure, checks and balances … all very well thought out and all very clean. This isn’t the problem at all … the problem is Democracy itself.

    While I get the impression that you guys have lived in the US most of your life, you aren’t really aware of what the US does outside its borders. Again, I am not trying to be offensive. Generally when speaking to people that have never lived outside the US borders, their opinions are skewed not necessarily by propaganda, but by the controlled media. Much of what the US does outside its borders are never reported inside the USA … but, i moving off subject …

    Democracy is a great system. The person with the most votes wins, right? This is incredibly fair because it guarentees that the person who is in charge (lets use the President as an example) is the one that more people support. First question, can you imagine someone winning the presidency that is not among the elite? If either of you were to run for office, would you stand a chance? Of course not, because Obama would outspend you a $Million to one. In a democracy, the most important thing to gain votes is to buy “advertising”. Today this is much more evident than before, but the “Free Press” has always guarenteed specific people more face time than others … even in 1776. Becoming president, or even a senator/congressman, involves a great deal of money. Elections that are based on money ensure that the rich stay in power … they don’t have to be the ones in the hot seat, it is enough for them to put someone there that they trust.

    A great example of this can be seen outside of the USA, where money doesn’t flow so well. Let us take the Ukraine … Back in 2004, American bought Ukraine for $65 Million … thats it, just $65 Million. They backed the western president, and simply outspent the other one. Bush sent his political advisors here, they drew up a budget, and put Yushchenko into power. This can only be done in a Democracy. If you pay attention, the US does this absolutely everywhere … and if their man doesn’t win, the country is labled ‘evil’. Of course, all countries do this to some extent … but, only America severs ties if the wrong party wins. The examples in South America are simply staggering.

    Democracy is a great form of government, but it needs to be rethought … my personal preference is that no man with an accumulated wealth of more than say $500k should be allowed to run for any office. This makes corruption much easier to monitor. Likewise, it will push the rich to the side and let the masses run the country, rather than the business interests.

    Sorry for jumping around a lot here … but, this is just a subject that is hard to pin down in 500 words or less. If I haven’t mentioned this before, I highly recommend Noam Chomsky’s book “Hegemony or Survival” … it is mainly propaganda, but holds a great deal of truth.

  8. 10 March 2009 at 14:20

    Oh, and Kyle, don’t be offended … most people stick to their internal truths tightly, and are not very fond of changing their opinions. In subjects such as these, facts are difficult to pinpoint because they change depending on perspective … is the Afghanistan war just? … depends on your point of view. I tend to visit sites that have a different opinion from mine, partially because I like a good argument, and partially because you don’t learn much when surrounded by like minded thinkers.

    Again, I generally don’t try to offend people. If I want to offend someone, however, it will be blatantly obvious ;)

  9. 9 DJ
    10 March 2009 at 19:44


    Our host does not filter content, he has a few rules such as play nice, don’t hit, and don’t call names, other than that, he leaves your post (and you) alone.

    Democracy is a horrid form of government. As I stated in my post, our Founding Fathers despised Democracy, that is why our Constitution guarantees us a REPUBLICAN form of government.

    I agree with you that money buys election’s (BHO is proof of that), but I do not want the leader of the Greatest Nation on God’s Green Earth nor the representatives of the people to have a maximum bank account level to be eligible for office. Personally, I would like to see campaign finance reform that required all candidates to list from whom they received contributions and the amount along with a very precise record of everything the monies were spent on. NO limits to how much an individual can contribute, but absolutely no Corporate contributions, no “fund raisers” etc. The National parties can also contribute, but only one time lump sum, and only during the first month AFTER the nominee is selected.

    Lastly, I have read Chomsky’s book, it is a load of crap.

  10. 11 March 2009 at 00:13

    @Zhann: It is no problem that you didn’t comment right away. There is no time limit here. I am glad to have you back.

    I agree with you that elections can be bought. And, consequently, I hate it. This is a reason that I have no problem calling either party out on their shenanigans.

    But, I don’t think this notion changes the fact that our government was made to be a Republic as the OP said. I think as DJ said in the comment above, there should be some sort of rules that don’t allow people to buy their way into the primary. Even as someone who hates government intervention, I think this is needed.

  11. 12 March 2009 at 06:01

    In a sense, I see that we are arguing the same truisms, simply from different sides and drawing slightly different conclusions. I will not argue that on paper the US was founded as a Republic, there is no doubt that this is true. We also agree that the current form of government is a pseudo-democracy, which regardless of whether or not it is legal is a hideous form of government. We also agree on the fact that money buys power, more specifically money buys you a position in government, be it for yourself or for a puppet of yours.

    With that said, I draw the conclusion that the founding fathers planned this from the start. The way they laid out the constitution on paper is irrelevant. The fact that they knew that by this form of government they will guarantee that the rich always remain in power trumps the piece of paper they wrote to fool the masses. While many elements of the constitution are sound, from day one they pick and chose what to follow and how to follow it (All men are created equal … unless your black or yellow or brown, and by man we me male … a bit hypocritical, no?). Hence, I feel that the USA has been a Polyarchy from the start. It has always been run by large populations of the rich, and I honestly believe that this is what the founding fathers intended. It is actually very easy to brainwash a population, the USA does it extremely well, and all countries try it on their populations to some extent. The importance of the piece of paper (constitution) is to give people the illusion that they live in an ideal form of government … providing it is not at all necessary.

    Personally, I feel that it is high time the constitution of the USA was rewritten. I am against any form of campaign contributions, I personally feel that any person should be allowed to run for president so long as they meet stringent requirements (an IQ test should be a requirement, avoiding another Bush situation). I of course haven’t tried thinking out a new constitution, or a new means for selecting elected officials, I am simply speaking my mind as the time comes. My view may be radical, but it is only an opinion.

  12. 12 March 2009 at 18:55

    @Zahn: Real quick because I have to go. IQ test? What, to “avoiding another Bush situation.” You do know that Bush is supposed to have an IQ of 125, right?

  13. 13 DJ
    12 March 2009 at 18:57


    “…I draw the conclusion that the founding fathers planned this from the start. The way they laid out the constitution on paper is irrelevant. The fact that they knew that by this form of government they will guarantee that the rich always remain in power trumps the piece of paper they wrote to fool the masses.”

    Please provide eveidence for this conclusion, I would like to debate it with you.

    “(All men are created equal … unless your black or yellow or brown, and by man we me male … a bit hypocritical, no?).”

    Actually, race is not mentioned in the Constitution. I would like to draw your attention to Article 1 Section 9 of our Constitution. “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but…”

    Without question, this language is describing slavery. The VAST majority of slaves were black, but NOT ALL slaves were black, there were many white slaves as well. Indentured Servitude was comonplace throughout the world at the time our Constitution was drafted. Due to the number of Southern states that supported slavery, the Constitution would never have been ratified if a compromise on the issue of Slavery had not been reached. The language in A1S9 is the result of that compromise. If you notice, the use of the word “persons” that was a specific term put in by Benjamin Franklin to ensure that everyone reading the document in the northern States understood that slaves were to be thought of as persons vice property.
    The Constitution did not belittle or reduce women as you seem to be implying, the roles of men and women were different. Most wives then had more influence over the thinking of their husbands than they are given credit for. I recommend you read the letters John Adams wrote his wife Abigail as well as her responses, it is quite evident that her beliefs molded his thought regarding legal as well as political issues.

    If you peruse this site a bit, there is an article regarding a new Constitutional convention. As I posted there, I will state it again, NO! We do not need a CONCON, what we need is to follow the one we have now. The Constitution we have now is the greatest document EVER written by man. There is no way the “scholars” we have today can improve upon it. Keep the Constitution we have, and abide by it.

  14. 14 March 2009 at 09:56

    Kyle … sorry, bad joke I guess. I find it hard to believe that Bush’s IQ is 125. While he is a clever man, I find near genius status a bit of a stretch. But, then again, what do I know? I never tested him.

    DJ … again, as for proof, I repeat that I have no qualms with the constitution describing a Republic on paper. However, on paper and in practice are two completely different things. My proof to you is simple, try and draw up a feasable way for a middle class individual to become a senator or congressman, lets forget about president. It is impossible. The founding fathers knew this, and adopted the constitution in this way to guarentee that their class, the upper class, always remained in power. If they truly wanted equal rights for all people, the rich wouldn’t receive such access to power, it would have been distributed evenly among the population. You know as well as I do that the rich are far from the smartest, and far from the most capable leaders.

    As for race, regardless of how the constitution was written, and how individual founding fathers felt, the fact remains that when the constitution was signed the phrase “All Men” did not mean All Males (ie. slaves), and it excluded females from elements of government. Hence, the concept of equality is non existent, hence my label of hypocrits.

  15. 15 DJ
    14 March 2009 at 12:34


    I fail to see your point on the “ALL MEN” issue. If you owed Kyle a debt, and failed to pay the debt back in the time frame agreed upon by the two of you, you had the option, with Kyles blessing, of becoming his slave until the debt was paid in full, it did not matter what color your skin was. As I mentioned above, iindentured servitude was commonplace at that time. One of the first persons killed in the revlutionary war was Crispus Attucks, an escaped slave turned sailor. Surley don’t mean to imply that a refugee slave, on the front line of a mob was NOT a free man. Mr. Attucks worked as a dock worker and a harpoonist, if he was not an “ALL MEN” than what was he? There were white slaves as well, and as property, I am willing to agree that slaves had fewer rights than non-slaves, but as freemen, Icannot fin any evidence to the contrary, please provide any evidence you have. Regarding women, I do not understand your issue. Women were not property of their husbands, they were partners, just as married couples are today. The census clause of the Constitution does not limit the count to males only, there are no gender restrictions either illicit or implied anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Surely you do not mean to imply that because the word “women” or “female”, or “fairer sex” or “girl” is not specifically included in the documents that women were by default excluded? Women owned businesses and they worked outside the home, just as they do today.

    As for the Constitution providing for the rich to control the country, please provide some eveidence because I disdagree with you. Right now we have a sitting congressman who cannot afford a DC area apartment, so he sleeps on a cot in his office-hardly rich. The original congressman were farmers, shop owners, bakers, dock workers, they came from all professions. As far as Senators, you may have point, but the Senate was never designed to be a “peoples house” it was designed to (a) protect the states rights and (b)protect the people from making rash decisons rgarding governemnt, I recommend you read Federalist 62 and 63, James Madison is very clear on what the Senate was designed to do.

  16. 16 Alan Scott
    14 March 2009 at 15:38


    I’m sorry I’m late to this discussion and I have not taken the time to thoroughly read every reply, but you said something in your first statement that I disagree with. “There is no way for the working class to advance into leadership because they are suppressed by the propaganda of the elites.” This is simply not accurate. Through out American history, leaders have come from nowhere. Obama is merely the latest example, which also includes Jackson, Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin to list a few.

    There has to be an element of luck, but that said, talent has more chance to rise in this country, than any other large nation in the world. I agree with you in one sense, anyone hoping to rise will have to move out of the working class in to an elite. A business elite, political elite, athletic elite, or entertainment elite. Families hoping to stay in an elite generally won’t last more than 3 generations. Rockefellers and Kennedys being notable exceptions. We are not the old world where class was stagnate by ancestry for centuries.

  17. 15 March 2009 at 07:51

    Sorry, but my time is limited at the moment, so I will write a quick response … I will put some time into it and provide you with a more detailed response a little later …

    DJ … You are trivializing slavery a bit too much. While a small minority of slaves fit your description, the vast majority of slaves were ripped from their land in a far off country (generally Africa), then sold to the US elite. Of course, I am greatly simplifying the horrors of slavery, but your description doesn’t really fit. These people had no chance of ever being free, nor did they intentionally borrow … they were simply caught, or sold by chief leaders. There was never any confusion as to where these people were coming from, how they got there or their eventual fates by the founding fathers.

    Alan … As for the poor making it far in political life, using Barack Obama as an example is inaccurate. Barack Obama may have been poor in childhood, and his early political career may not have been lined with gold, but he was far from poor. If he could afford a house cleaner and nanny while his wife stayed at home with the kids (see Audacity of Hope), he could afford an apartment in DC. Obama is a bit different from the elites, but don’t forget that you don’t have to be rich personally but you can be financed by the rich, at which point you will ‘owe’ them. Nobody finances their elections any more, they find endorsements … and in Obama’s case, they found Lots of endorsements.

  18. 18 DJ
    15 March 2009 at 17:07


    I was NOT trivializing slavery. There were white slaves and free blacks, there were blacks that owned slaves! The 3/5ths clause in the Constitution is not about “keeping the black man down” it was to ensure fair representation in Congress. The 1808 language was put in to appease the South and ensure the Constitution was ratified. You cannot be implying that all slaves should have been counted as individuals when they clearly were not going to be allowed to vote (regardless of color). Although I have no evidence to support it, I feel pretty certain that had the slave states voluntarily ended slavery, the 3/5ths clause would not have been in the Constitution at all and ALL MEN would have included freed slaves.

  19. 16 March 2009 at 10:45

    DJ, I have given your request of proof that the constitution was designed for the rich some thought. You are asking for documented proof, which is about as likely as finding documented proof of the rampant corruption that occurs in high government in forms of kickback and bribes … earmarks are more or less documented … these are simply things that are not documented by design. I assume you agree with Kyle regarding the Federal Reserve’s corrupt nature. While you will find a document detailing the design of the Federal Reserve, can you find a document that would admit that the President of the USA bows to the will of the Fed? While people may kick and scream, the President and the upper administration would never dissolve the Fed because it makes too many for their rich friends, not to mention that the Fed itself would fight this to its dying breath. You know this, but can you find a document detailing this? Of course not. The only way to dissolve the Fed is for the people to riot in the streets, but with the obedient media at the administrations disposal, the people are properly pacified … sorry for the aside, and please don’t argue this point it is simply a means to show that documentation isn’t something that is always available. If you don’t agree with my view on this it is irrelevant to the core argument.

    Returning to the core argument, proving the US’s inherent support of the elite while pushing aside the lower/working class, with possible documentation eliminated, we must revert to history and logic. Since you have read Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival, quoting facts there seem redundant (while I am very curious what of it you found crap, we can return to this in a later argument if time permits). Let’s try and look at the broader picture.

    My Personal view … As far as the government is concerned, people are divided into two groups, ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. ‘Us’ generally includes the elite. Not necessarily the Super Rich, but usually the Old Rich (as Alan already mentioned). New rich are always welcome to join ‘Us’, but they need to bring something more than money into the game. Likewise, since ‘Us’ rarely consist of the most able minds, or even higher than average minds, it is necessary for them to recruit some of ‘Them’. Barack Obama is a prime example of this, he was picked long ago (I remember first hearing of him during the 2004 election, implying that by this time substantial consideration had already been given to him) and was carefully primed. He was tested, provided large amounts of money during his senate term, which was most likely a test of his corruptibility (a given being from Chicago). ‘Them’ on the other hand is everyone else. If one of ‘Them’ starts making it big in government, they are tested very thoroughly. If they do not pass the test, they are simply squeezed out or held back. Those that do not pass will never make it to President. Some of ‘Us’ never make it either, failing tests miserably. Your favorite Ron Paul is a brilliant guy, speaks his mind, knows what is going on … but will never make President no matter how many followers he gains. The Media will crush him, under the command of ‘Us’, and he will never get the votes necessary.

    My Argument … To win an election you need 50% of the VOTING population. Unlike many European states, the USA acknowledges a vote made by less than 50% of the population. If you want to achieve the 50% margin, you need to first identify the population that actually votes. Next, as you well know, the voting population is separated into various groups, and targeted as groups. This holds true for President, Governor and Senator as well as Congressman and Mayor to a lesser extent. This was ‘designed’ in the constitution because under these circumstances it is very easy to sway a vote one way or the other. The way elections are handled, especially today, is proof enough. When was the last time you heard a real debate between presidential candidates touching on sensitive topics like the Fed? It isn’t in their best interests. The elections are intentionally drawn on a personal level in order to confuse the voters. It is irrelevant who the people choose at this point because the policies will not change a great deal. One may approve of abortion, while the other doesn’t … who cares? This will not change anything in the real world, it will only placate the sheep. Real questions involve the Fed, American interference in sovereign nations, World Bank, Europe … and countless other global issues. While the Founding Fathers had different issues, I find it hard to believe that they were unaware of how their system really will work. They had foreseen the Fed, some even fought hard against it, but it was never presented to the public properly for debate. Why? Because the rich don’t need the sheep to interfere. ‘Them’ simply need to work hard, and make the rich richer … sorry, I kind of got carried away, but I am sure you see where I am heading.

    Supporting Argument … While many of the Founding Fathers were against this form of government, they weren’t given much of a choice. It is important to keep in mind that going against the grain, especially in a crowd of elites, is not the best way to get ahead in life. While some of my most respected people include 2 founding fathers, I am fully aware of the fact that they will not ever go against the interests of their class. Those of them that weren’t among the elite in terms of finances were chosen for some of their exceptional abilities. Considering the Founding Fathers were among the brightest of their time, it is impossible for them to have missed the giant financial gap in their system of government. They must have seen it, and openly discussed it … it is blaringly obvious. Since they knew what this government would bring to the working class, I support my argument by saying that this was planned, hence it was designed. While it may not have been everyone’s intention to create a form of government like the one we have now, they were all fully aware of what they were doing and how it would turn out.

    In conclusion, I see no possibly way that the Founding Fathers missed the fact that the elite would stay in power while the working class made them richer. I guarantee that most of the founding fathers intentionally wanted this in order to secure their wealth. While some may have disagreed with this philosophy in general, they signed anyway. Maybe it was the best that they could come up with at that time, maybe they realized that there was no fighting the rich … or, as some conspiracy theorists claim, maybe it was simply the Masons trying to get a foothold in the new world order. Any way you look at it, I have to argue that the constitution was designed to look like a Republic, but the founding fathers new better.

  20. 20 DJ
    16 March 2009 at 11:32


    Our Constitution does not allow for the election of the President by 50% of the vote, the winner is chosen by electors, the electoral votes are what win presidential elections. The House, Senate and most States only require the person with the most votes, often LESS than 50%, to win, and a few states (Georgia and Louisiana for example) require more than 50% in order to be the “winner”.

    “… it is blaringly obvious”

    If your opinion is blaringly obvious, please provide a “blaringly obvious” example, I am not asking you to produce a document, I am asking you what sentence, paragraph, or connection of words in the Constituion, Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, or any founding document supports your position. Again, I draw your attention to Federalist 62 and 63 regarding the purpose of the Senate, I believe 53, 54, 55, and 56 which address the House of Reprensentatives.

    I agree with a lot of what you state in your “My Argument…” paragraph, politics is about feelings rather than issues. Funny thing, since the first Presidential debate on televison was held, (Nixon-Kennedy) the “better looking” candidate has won each election-I find it both odd, and in agreement with your position that feelings and personal level issues are what the voters look at (no pun intneded), and this is significantly to the disadvantage of the country.

    If the founding fathers had wanted a fininacial gap to exist betwen “Us and Them” they would have ensured an avenue to take created wealth from “them”, instead, the Constitution was written to prevent direct taxation, thus allowing all of the “thems” to generate wealth and become rich. It wasn’t until the early 20th century that the current taxing policy was instituted and subsequently bastardized into the monstosity we have now. The founding fathers did not believe in a Federal Reserve in any sense, central banking was looked upon as a VERY EVIL entity. That is why the power to COIN money is specifically given to the Congress, not a “Money Printing Agency” (i.e. A Central Bank or the FED). Yet in 1913, through a scam perpetrateed by elites, we are where we are. I mention this because it has nothing to do with what the founders planned, it was snuck in during a “Quorum vote” during a Winter recess 1912.

    Our Constitution is the Greatest document ever generated by the mind of man, and it has taken abuse and treachery (from both parties) to get where we are today. I have read our founding documents many times, I fail to recall what you see in these masterpieces that even remotely sounds like elitism. To the contrary, I read them as supporting the God given rights of Man and mans’s ability to be sucessful in any endevour that does not hinder the God given rights of another American.

  21. 21 Alan Scott
    16 March 2009 at 19:17


    I do not want us talking past one another. I agree that Barak Obama was not poor in his adult life. I do not like the man, but I used him as an example of someone rising, who was not part of an inherited elite. Some one may rise from their born station and become part of an elite, in the US. That is a strength in our country. One of the root causes of both the French and Russian revolutions was that it was nearly impossible for anyone in the peasant class to ever rise to economic or political leadership. The aristocracy was protected from competition from below. We are descended from English society. England having a more commercial economy had more flux between upper and lower classes and therefore never had a catastrophic class warfare explosion.

    The other examples, I cited, such as Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and Benjamin Franklin are men who rose from humble beginnings, by hard work and sheer intellect. Just by their rising they leave their lower classes and by definition are in the elites. You say it is impossible for the poor to rise, because once they rise they are no longer poor.

    You keep talking about the rich class as if they were space aliens. We are a capitalist country. The economically valuable are rewarded. My problem with Obama’s rise, apart from his socialist ideas, is that he became rich through the exercise of political power. I don’t believe the book sales stories. He was far too wealthy for just being, first a State, then a US Senator.

  22. 16 March 2009 at 19:29

    @Zhann: Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were in bed with the elites? If so, I find it amazing at what some of the Fathers said early on about government.

    You speak of the “Old rich,” of which I agree that they are out there and they many times do operate behind the curtains. To me, the Old Rich would be people who are central banking and/or tied very closely with central banking. If so, we can examine the Fathers thoughts.

    Thomas Jefferson

    The system of banking is a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

    If the people ever allow the banks to issue their currency, the banks and corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

    James Madison (which seems very telling on this issue)

    History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance.

    @DJ: How about Federalist #43?

    In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations.

    To me it seems pretty clear that the Constitution is not written to cater to the elites. If that is what happened, at any point, it was because people were bought out, not because the Constitution was written to give the elites a front row seat.

  23. 23 zhann
    18 March 2009 at 16:06

    We seem to be arguing in circles here. We agree on most of the key points, but it seems you will never agree to the fact that the Founding Fathers foresaw the type of government we have today. Since it is impossible to provide proof of this, my only response can be more of the same.

    DJ … about votes, I was trying to be brief, I know it doesn’t look that way in my ‘short’ message. By obvious, I simply mean that I give the founding fathers enough credit to give them the foresight to see the type of government that would exist in 100 years or so. You don’t, thats fine, but with hindsight it is very obvious. Those that voice out against this type of government … well, lost. Like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and many others.

    Alan … I concede that when America was young it was easier for those with little to achieve much. I am still convinced that they had the backing of the elite, regardless, but without proof I don’t want to delve deeper. As for my ‘rich’ connotation, it is more to separate not so much those with money, but more so those with power. While Power often equates to money, it isn’t necessary. I am of the firm opinion that we are in a Polyarchy, and this Polyarchy has remained in a stable set of rulers for quite some time now, regardless of president, senate or what have you. Business runs America, not our leaders.

    Kyle … Again, there are those that were against this form of government. But, they lost … their views were trumped by greed. You must agree, the Fed ‘existed’ before it was law. Maybe not in controlling money, but those that benefitted most from that law were close to power long before the law was passed.

  24. 24 Alan Scott
    19 March 2009 at 18:58


    “Polyarchy has remained in a stable set of rulers for quite some time now, regardless of president, senate or what have you. Business runs America, not our leaders.”

    I do not agree with this statement, but for the sake of argument I will concede that it is not entirely with out merit. I personally would rather have business run America, and then try to be one of those businesses. The old saying that what’s good for General Motors is good for America. That is bad only if GM is too powerful. Or if it is the GM of today.

    I would like to contrast this with what I consider the polar opposite of the universe, North Korea. North Korea will not let any uncontrolled business operate with in it’s borders. Even though these businesses potentially could raise up it’s population from starvation and abject poverty. The government knows that successful businesses and their owners will become independent power centers, if only economically. This threatens their monopoly on power. I see a parallel example, not to the same extreme, of Obama and Pelosi. The heavy taxation of the rich and redistribution of it’s wealth to the great unwashed, is not so much an economic issue as it is an attack on a rival power. Not unlike the crown trying to check the power of the aristocracy in a classic European monarchy.

  25. 19 March 2009 at 21:45

    @Zhann: Of course there is going to be people against this form of government that we made. IMHO, I think it would be scary (and bad) if everyone walked into a room, said, “Yep, that is what we want” and then wrote it down and didn’t debate it out. I believe that debate brings forth the best ideas, and I am glad that people didn’t want what we got.

    As for the Fed existing before it came into law, I would presume so. There has always been rich people and rich people trying to run the world. So, I don’t doubt that there was a cartel of elites sharpening their talons before 1913.

    But I am still not sure what you are arguing. You say that the “Founding Fathers foresaw the type of government we have today.” But I ask you, what could they have done to completely prevent it? Make a list of people who couldn’t be politicians? Make a list of people who couldn’t talk to politicians? What do you propose they did to have it so that politicians today are not part of or bought by any elite?

    You are talking about an impossibility here. There is no way to stop people in the future from being corrupted by the elite without taking away freedoms from We The People.

    Furthermore, I think that the Bill of Rights is a fine example of how the Fathers wanted to give us power to fight against the elites.

    -First Amendment – Let us talk about whatever, including bad government and bought out politicians. Then when they mess up or when we want change, we can assemble and be heard.
    -Second Amendment – If the government gets out of control, we can fight back. In this case, we can fight back against whoever is trying to run our life, either in front of the curtain or behind the curtain.
    -Third Amendment – Our home is our home and nobody, the government or elite, can make us house troops.
    -Fourth Amendment – nobody, government or elite can come in and mess with us.
    -Fifth Amendment – Burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that I am guilty. Elites can’t just wave money and say that you said this or that, they have to prove that you are guilty.
    -Sixth Amendment – Can’t just lock us up indefinitely. We have to be tried or let free.
    -Seventh Amendment – Our guilt is to be proven by our peers. Otherwise, we are innocent. Money can’t buy us a jail cell.
    -Eighth Amendment – Our bails can’t be ridiculous. If they were, this would favor the rich/elite.
    -Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
    -Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people, through voting and their representatives.

    While not all of those Amendments allow us to fight the elites, it does seem to suggest that we are all equal. We have the right to talk about the elites. We can’t be put in jail because an elite said so. We have to get out with a reasonable bail. Etc.

  26. 26 Alan Scott
    20 March 2009 at 20:04

    Our nation is a constantly moving conflict of elites. The Constitution is the blue print for the chaos. Checks and balances. Just now the federal government is surging to control more of everyone’s lives. The 10th Amendment is under assault. Obama is trying to buy control of the states with stimulus money. All federal money has strings. Take the money this year and lock your state government in to higher payouts, particularly with unemployment payments. when federal money goes away. You won’t hear this from the Obama rectal polyp media. In Pa. we have fast Eddie Rendel trying to lock us in to multi year commitments. Obama’s stimulus payola is just the latest opportunity for Gov. Rendel. We have a few courageous State Reps and Senators who are sounding the alarm.

  27. 21 March 2009 at 02:18

    Like when the southern governors refused stimulus money and were told that they were slapping blacks in the face?

    “Now the (South Carolina) governor says, ‘I don’t want to accept the money,’” Clyburn told CNN. “That’s why I called this an insult. That’s why I said this is a slap in the face — because a majority of these counties are, in fact, inhabited by African-Americans.”


  28. 28 Alan Scott
    21 March 2009 at 08:28

    Konfusing Kancer,

    “Like when the southern governors refused stimulus money and were told that they were slapping blacks in the face?”

    Republicans have finally grown spines. They know they will be falsely accused of racism, hating poor people, pollution. That was the greatness of Reagan, he did not care how much the press and the Democrats lied about him. Republicans have been way too concerned with getting along, during the last decade or so. I wonder how Democrats will spin racism on to Governor Palin for resisting porkulus bribes?

  29. 21 March 2009 at 20:33

    @Alan: It is about time. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Stand up for what you say and believe in.

    And you are right… for the most part, regardless of what is done, Democrats will always call Republicans sexist, racist, poor hater, CEO-loveres, and polluters. I know I’ve been called a few of those on more than one occasion. (And I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. But because I am not a Democrat, I am those things).

  30. 30 Alan Scott
    25 March 2009 at 16:05

    Right now we have almost the worst of all worlds. Ultra left wing Democrats have a strangle hold in Congress and the White House. Worse yet, they came in at a time of crisis. This gives them a cover to run the country in to the ground. They are buying votes with our money. Today, the front page in my home town newspaper deals with how the locals can line up at the pig trough for stimulus money. In this corrupt nation, pork works. Yes, we Americans can be bought.

    The Supreme Court is the only part of government, even nominally centrist.

  31. 31 DJ
    25 March 2009 at 17:03

    Alan Scott,

    I agree, America IS being bought. I disagree with your notion that the SCOTUS is centrist. The current makeup tends to lead one to believe they are centrist or at least neutral (4-4-1). However, when the great court claims “No Standing” to a soverign US citizen who is only asking for proof that our “leader” is qualified to hold the office, that reeks of something VERY LEFT of centrist. I fear the court is more concerned with not being stuck in the middle, or being accused of legislating the election than they are with enforcing the Constitution and protecting the rights of the people. If the great court is going to act wishy-washy and scared-at the same time, I would rather see the CJOTSC stand up and say, “WE DO NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS, many of the people will be mad and we will not be looked upon as a good court.” OR I would rather have the Congress dissolve the court and let us fight it out to see if a Republican form of government can be risen or this modified Socialist crap will reign.

  32. 26 March 2009 at 05:20

    Totally off topic, but I found another young soul (<21 yrs old) who is calling shit as he sees it. He has a youtube channel. He sucks at speaking, but at least he is calling bullshit when he sees it.


  33. 33 Alan Scott
    26 March 2009 at 18:47

    Konfusing Kancer,

    It’s good to know that not every young person has been brain scrubbed by the public education system and TV.
    I like the kid’s bluntness in describing the stupidity that he observes. He starts out ok, but he rambles when he gives his solutions. He loses his clarity of thought as he goes on. It comes from trying to cover too many bases. I know because I’m guilty of it myself.

  34. 28 October 2009 at 10:39

    I think campaign finaice reform in the Congress is important, but I would argue that the 17th amendment has increased the likelihood of such lapses in the Senate (which wouldn’t otherwise happen). I suppose the question is: who is being represented in the U.S. Senate? If you are interested in this line of thought, I hope you will have a look at the following post: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/the-u-s-senate-what-is-it-really/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain



%d bloggers like this: