There were folks as early as 1787 who knew that the coming government would result in tyranny. By presenting YOUR Article III of YOUR New Constitution you demonstrate that things would not be better under YOUR New Constitution, but would instead fall deeper (if that's possible) into the hands of "our monarchical, aristocratical democracy."
The Antifederalist Papers No. 9
A Consolidated Government is a Tyranny
"MONTEZUMA," regarded as a Pennsylvanian, wrote this essay which showed up in the Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787.
We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble-and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, "that all men are born equal"-beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy.
lst. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though totally incapable of thinking or acting in governmental matters) are more readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in something like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the popular name of the House of Representatives. But to guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill they bring forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. Nor have we allowed the populace the right to elect their representatives annually . . . lest this body should be too much under the influence and control of their constituents, and thereby prove the "weatherboard of our grand edifice, to show the shiftings of every fashionable gale,"-for we have not yet to learn that little else is wanting to aristocratize the most democratical representative than to make him somewhat independent of his political creators. We have taken away that rotation of appointment which has so long perplexed us-that grand engine of popular influence. Every man is eligible into our government from time to time for life. This will have a two-fold good effect. First, it prevents the representatives from mixing with the lower class, and imbibing their foolish sentiments, with which they would have come charged on re-election.
2d. They will from the perpetuality of office be under our eye, and in a short time will think and act like us, independently of popular whims and prejudices. For the assertion "that evil communications corrupt good manners," is not more true than its reverse. We have allowed this house the power to impeach, but we have tenaciously reserved the right to try. We hope gentlemen, you will see the policy of this clause-for what matters it who accuses, if the accused is tried by his friends. In fine, this plebian house will have little power, and that little be rightly shaped by our house of gentlemen, who will have a very extensive influence-from their being chosen out of the genteeler class ... It is true, every third senatorial seat is to be vacated duennually, but two-thirds of this influential body will remain in office, and be ready to direct or (if necessary) bring over to the good old way, the young members, if the old ones should not be returned. And whereas many of our brethren, from a laudable desire to support their rank in life above the commonalty, have not only deranged their finances, but subjected their persons to indecent treatment (as being arrested for debt, etc.) we have framed a privilege clause, by which they may laugh at the fools who trusted them. But we have given out, that this clause was provided, only that the members might be able without interruption, to deliberate on the important business of their country.
We have frequently endeavored to effect in our respective states, the happy discrimination which pervades this system; but finding we could not bring the states into it individually, we have determined ... and have taken pains to leave the legislature of each free and independent state, as they now call themselves, in such a situation that they will eventually be absorbed by our grand continental vortex, or dwindle into petty corporations, and have power over little else than yoaking hogs or determining the width of cart wheels. But (aware that an intention to annihilate state legislatures, would be objected to our favorite scheme) we have made their existence (as a board of electors) necessary to ours. This furnishes us and our advocates with a fine answer to any clamors that may be raised on this subject. We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A name we thought proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a silly people who are so foolishly fond of a Republican government, that we were obliged to accommodate in names and forms to them, in order more effectually to secure the substance of our proposed plan; but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector). I repeat it, what have we to fear armed with such powers, with a president at our head who is captain- -general of the army, navy and militia of the United States, who can make and unmake treaties, appoint and commission ambassadors and other ministers, who can grant or refuse reprieves or pardons, who can make judges of the supreme and other continental courts-in short, who will be the source, the fountain of honor, profit and power, whose influence like the rays of the sun, will diffuse itself far and wide, will exhale all democratical vapors and break the clouds of popular insurrection? But again gentlemen, our judicial power is a strong work, a masked battery, few people see the guns we can and will ere long play off from it. For the judicial power embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting ambassadors or other public ministers, "and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects."
Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the ingenuity or sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of the above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in all cases-and if so, how fallen are state judicatures-and must not every provincial law yield to our supreme flat? Our constitution answers yes. . . . And finally we shall entrench ourselves so as to laugh at the cabals of the commonalty. A few regiments will do at first; it must be spread abroad that they are absolutely necessary to defend the frontiers. Now a regiment and then a legion must be added quietly; by and by a frigate or two must be built, still taking care to intimate that they are essential to the support of our revenue laws and to prevent smuggling. We have said nothing about a bill of rights, for we viewed it as an eternal clog upon our designs, as a lock chain to the wheels of government-though, by the way, as we have not insisted on rotation in our offices, the simile of a wheel is ill. We have for some time considered the freedom of the press as a great evil-it spreads information, and begets a licentiousness in the people which needs the rein more than the spur; besides, a daring printer may expose the plans of government and lessen the consequence of our president and senate-for these and many other reasons we have said nothing with respect to the "right of the people to speak and publish their sentiments" or about their "palladiums of liberty" and such stuff. We do not much like that sturdy privilege of the people-the right to demand the writ of habeas corpus. We have therefore reserved the power of refusing it in cases of rebellion, and you know we are the judges of what is rebellion.... Our friends we find have been assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at large-frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other-are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms of examination--which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS-to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people-we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit.
Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal.
MONTEZUMA
On 06/05/2011 05:54 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
Dear J. Ashley: Your motivations "as the skeptic" sometimes serve a useful purpose: Allowing me to explain the exacting rationale behind specific portions of my New Constitution. *** The crux and most important (though most disregarded) precept of the original Constitution is this: Having our government be a Representative Republic. That, as closely as possible, gives equal power to every law-abiding citizen of voting age. A Representative Republic, being the anti-thesis of socialism and communism has ALWAYS made the latter UNCONSTITUTIONAL. When our brave men and women in the military put their lives on the line to "preserve our freedoms", there is no greater FREEDOM than allowing law-abiding citizens of voting age to fairly determine the course of Government! Somewhere along the way, the Will of the People wasn't good enough for the good-for-nothing, leftist, progressive democrats. If they couldn't turn this country into a socialist or communist nation via congressional actions, they decided to use... the courts. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that justices to the Supreme Court can be ideologically screened to agree with the views of the President who nominated them, or with the ideology of the "particular" party that happens to be in power. The "Justice is Blind" ideal for the courts demands that there be NO built-in BIAS in the judges and justices! And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that in the process of determining (yes or no) whether anything has a Constitutional "sticking point" that those nine justices, by their BIASED decision(s) get to usurp the power of Congress and decide by themselves, not only which side will win, but will also have that biased decision become part of the history of (bad) decisions that future justices will look for so hard in justifying their own high corruption! In the case of Obama Care, all prudent observers know that States Rights are by far more important than a general stipulation by the founding fathers that the Fed. Government can regulate interstate commerce. Hell, in those horse and buggy times, there was no such thing as health insurance! And since the SPIRIT of the Constitution OUTLAWS anything that's unfair and non democratic, then the concept of government controlled social anything is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The only constitutional avenue of action when the Supreme Court finds a sticking point, is to send the questioned "law" back to congress to be re-written or abandoned. By their votes, justices aren't entitled to decide constitutional issues, themselves! Neither are they empowered, in deciding civil or criminal appeals, to use their biases as a basis for punishing those who happen to disagree with them! *** Easily, the majority of the decisions "handed down" (unconstitutional) by the "high court" (unconstitutional) are unconstitutional! In a Representative Republic, no oligarchy, such as the US Senate and the God Damned US Supreme Court are empowered to have power greater than one-person-one vote.! And that has NEVER been the vote of one of nine justices! I know a great deal about the corrupt CULTURE of our courts, because that was my motivation for starting to write my New Constitution in the first place. The entire Article III is copied, below. "Article III: Section 1: The lesser Judicial Branch consists of a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the House establishes. Its major duty is to interpret laws. It has no power to command enforcement of any of its rulings unless so mandated in prior, formally stipulated and apt laws. Judges and justices are technicians of the law and of this New Constitution. They shall perform their duties as individuals, never as part of any perceived culture of the lesser Judicial Branch, nor from any consultation whatsoever with past or present members of such. Additionally, they shall not have held state or federal executive or legislative office. The President shall nominate new justices who are between the ages of 50 and 60 years old, and may on good behavior, serve a single term of up to 10 years. The President, or his agents, shall not work to win the confirmation of any nominee. Judges and justices shall be selected for their intellect, high moral character, compassion, knowledge of the law, likable nature, and for their proficiency and expediency in office. Such shall not be aloft nor considered infallible in all their judgments, yet shall be respected if they right injustices quickly. They shall make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitution—never on their personal ideologies. Every two years an unbiased review panel shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of seated judges and justices. With the assent of 60% of the voters nationwide, the latter can be unseated. Judges and justices aren't royalty, nor do they have an implied moral judgment inherently superior to public macro-consensus. They shall not be chambered lavishly, sit in throne-like chairs, wear robes on the job, nor dress in a style that differentiates them from the People. They shall not socialize with, nor privately be in conference with, members of the Executive or Legislative branches of government; nor shall they attend State of the Union Addresses or similar events. The Public shall not stand for entering or exiting judges or justices who shall be addressed only as: judge or justice. Judges and justices not respecting such provisions, or who exhibit excessive arrogance or pomposity on the job shall be removed. Sessions of all trials shall begin with the judge(s) or justice(s) saying: "The justice system is on trial." All assent five-to-four Supreme Court decisions are for one year only, or shall be invalid; and the same nine justices shall not—on their own—reconsider such issue. Courtrooms shall be devoid of gavels, seals, flags and oppressive art, and no design feature nor process shall imply that judges or justices represent government or respond patly or collectively. It is TREASON for a judge or justice to rule with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy. Section 2 & 3: Judges and justices shall be answerable to the People. On issues of internal criminality, misconduct or corruption within any arm of government—including the entire judicial system— judges and justices shall not, during a trial or during sentencing, favor government officials, judges, justices, nor any arm(s) of law enforcement, and shall hold government officials, fellow judges, justices, or members of law enforcement as accountable for wrongful acts as those outside of government. If a judge or justice fails to respond to a rightful petition or complaint against any government official or member of the justice system, such judge or justice may be guilty of a felony. The determination of the above status shall be made following a mandatory vote in the House. Upon a yea vote of 1/3 of the House, a national public trial, televised from the House, shall be held regarding all named parties—with judgment being determined via referendum. Whenever 60% of the registered voters who vote determine that there is guilt, the government officials, judges, justices and/or members of law enforcement shall be removed from their former positions and sentenced commensurate with their crimes, up to and including the death penalty. Judicial authority shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this New Constitution, the laws of the United States, treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies in which the United States is a party, to controversies between two or more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states or the Citizens thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors and consuls, and those in which a state is a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate juris-diction both as to law and to fact—with such exceptions and under such regulations as the House shall make. Except in cases of impeachment, the trial of all crimes shall be by jury in the state where said crimes were allegedly committed, or if otherwise, where the House directs. Misdemeanors and crimes occurring conjunctively shall be tried with the more serious crime, unless the disproving of the misdemeanor would excuse the crime. If either occurred in multiple jurisdictions, the trial shall be at a single common venue that is least compromising to the defense. But capital murder cases may be tried consecutively. Section 4: New trials shall be granted to anyone previously found guilty if there is substantive new evidence for innocence, or if there was an improper collection of, suppression of, or distortion of the facts by law enforcement, the prosecution, or by the courts. The resolution of such matters shall be the top priority of the courts. If a person is tried in a civil court for substantially the same offense that they previously or subsequently be acquitted of in a criminal case, a unanimous verdict of nine jurors shall be required for the civil judgment to stand. No civil agency nor governmental body shall independently seek to punish any person acquitted, as by denying to such person any fundamental rights or privileges. In civil trials monetary awards determined by juries shall stand. Achieving justice being the primary objective, such shall take precedence over petty procedural or legal technicalities, except those restrictions placed on government(s) or protecting the full civil rights of any citizen shall never be waived. Obtaining a lawyer in civil cases is as fundamental to justice as obtaining a lawyer in criminal cases. No statute of limitation shall apply to any case in which a plaintiff or defendant diligently seeks but can't find a lawyer. Upon request to the court, an unbiased lawyer shall be appointed. In federal cases licensed lawyers from any state or territory may be used regardless of where the trial takes place. The right of the People to obtain justice for any criminal or civil injury is funda-mental. Justice departments, law enforcement agencies, and/or the courts shall be the instruments of justice. Should such in any way obstruct justice by improper procedure, bias, or intentional neglect of duty, such persons shall be held as criminally accountable as anyone else for obstruction of justice—a felony. Undue delay by a defendant or their counsel in a civil case— as a defensive tactic—is prohibited, and if present may be considered as evidence supporting guilt. Causing undue delay of appeals, similarly, is prohibited. Section 5 & 6: It is treason to foster corruption in any arm of government, to levy war against the USA, adhere to her enemies, or to give them aid and comfort. The former must show abuse of power that subverts the New Constitution, such as by enlisting subordinates into unlawfulness that violates the civil rights of any Citizen or group. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or by confession in court. The House sets punishment for treason, if the civil rights of innocent relatives aren't affected. Witnesses in court shall be asked: "Do you promise that the testimony you are about to give will be truthful to the best of your knowledge?" No religious help or association shall be required during the asking of such question. The truthfulness of a witness's testimony can be limited by the manner, sequence, and extent of questioning, so witnesses always have the right to volunteer apt, truthful testimony without fear of sanction by the court. Perjury shall be punished commensurate with the level of negative effects resulting therefrom. Judges shall have discretionary sentencing power below the maxi-mum, but felonies carry a min. 3-year sentence, or as stated herein. The accrued negative effects of any criminal sentence shall not exceed the accrued negative effects of the crime. Fines or monetary judgments shall not be used to allay government costs. If the public isn't injured, it's not a crime to flee or hide from injustice, nor to aid another, therewith. Nor is it a crime, or proof of a crime, for an innocent person to lie to protect their own privacy, or the privacy of an inno-cent person. The House or states shall pass no law nor approve any regulation requiring that a convicted person admit to guilt in order to get a fair sentence or to be considered for parole. During incarceration, if a jailed person's behavior has been good, at the appointed time, parole shall be granted. When a conviction is appealed, adjudication shall occur within six months, without public pressure, bias, or a presumption of the correctness of the conviction. A rightful decision in such shall be based only on the facts in the case while respecting the continuing constitutional rights of the one convicted. The appeal(s) of a conviction shall never place the appealer in jeopardy of a worse sentence. A reasonable daily frequency of unmonitored phone calls and unopened mail (external sniffing and/or x-raying accepted) shall be allowed for persons held against their will. Section 7: Judges and justices shall not selectively interpret, limit, or exclude existing laws so as to effectively make new laws. No judge or justice shall be appointed based on their ideology, nor shall ideology be considered in confirmation processes. As to the nominating or appointing of judges or justices: No candidate for public office, member of the Executive Branch nor the House, shall state nor imply that a nominee will hold, or does hold, a particular ideology, because by so stating or implying, such candidate shall be disqualified, the apt one's governmental job shall be lost, and the apt nominee disqualified. Criminal cases shall be processed as a named, titleless person v. a named person(s). The defense can choose to sit on either side of the court. Judges and justices shall not anthropomorphize "the Court", nor seek out "historical" court positions on which to base decisions; rather, decisions shall be theirs alone. Section 8: It's a felony for any person, organization, group, or special interest—publicly or privately—to lobby judges or justices for influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor. It's a capital offense for such to accept a bribe that directly results in a person's death. It's a felony to extort an innocent defendant into pleading guilty by threatening to try them for a greater crime; ipso facto, the greater crime is excused. Law enforcement and the courts shall be responsive rather than proactive, protective without being subjugative, and shall enforce the New Constitution ahead of any other laws or employment hierarchies. Racial or other statistical profiling, preemptive arrests, detention or sentencing are illegal if a person's constitutional rights are violated. But in an emergency, the President —or when apt, a state governor(s)—may temporarily waive the latter. It's a felony for an attorney to acquiesce to their client's ongoing violations of this constitution, and/or their criminal conduct, without censure; or for any reason to conspire to violate, or violate, another person's civil rights; or to stonewall the easy resolution of justified complaints by non action, legal shenanigans or personal bias. Similarly, it's a civil offense for an individual, group or business to require that a justified plaintiff have an attorney before moving to make agreeable amends. States shall license no attorney on the payroll or board of another type business, organization or non- judicial governmental agency; nor one who violates this constitution; nor one who because of personal bias, fails to competently defend the civil rights of any Citizen. Incorporation doesn't protect those in such from personal responsibility for maliciousness in: harming any person; irremediably harming local or world environs; or endangering the likely health and safety of local or world Citizens. A crime's seriousness shall be consistent with the mores of the People and the apt juries rather than with government. Judges & justices shall be well mannered, forthright and succinct; courtrooms aren't their property nor forums for venting their feelings. A Citizen can sanction a judge or justice in court for deviating from this constitution or its spirit. Rightful behavior by any law-abiding Citizen is appropriate, implicitly, and no Citizen so acting shall be subordinate in or to any court, nor be made to defer to overly drawn- out legal processes or pending rulings." — John A. Armistead — PatriotOn Jun 4, 7:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:John, You have certainly lived up to your moniker this time. Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." How can something specifically enumerated in the Constitution be unconstitutional? On 06/04/2011 03:37 PM, NoEinstein wrote:Dear plainol...: The Federal Government, especially the court system, has been disregarding the Constitution for over a century. If there is a disagreement, the only thing the Supreme Court is authorized to do is to send things back to CONGRESS to be resolved. Nothing in the Constitution grants one justice more total power than Congress! Therefore the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional... by RITUAL. � J. A. Armistead � Patriot On Jun 3, 3:11 pm, plainolamerican<plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:Does the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers granted to the states clause rule? --- what states rights? that was resolved in 1865 ... sorta it's time for another showdown since it's obvious that the feds pick and choose their responsibilities and powersOn Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:No, MJ! Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations that will allow this, but not "that". Does the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers granted to the states clause rule? That, supposedly, will determine the constitutionality of Obama Care. As I've explained: The Senate was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail). A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Like our Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama�s being in the White House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard! If you want 100 senile, career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution without a House of Representatives? For running a government, I'll take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US Senate every time! Harry Reid should be out of a job! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way. Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition. Regard$, --MJ "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ: What "definition" is that? That an anti-democracy and anti- Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two? The US senate is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth! We could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to cross Main Street! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition. Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the States -- those entities forming the United States (plural). Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will *magically* correct ills. Regard$, --MJ Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ: The Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states. The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative Republic. Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that constitutional! Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those constitutional, either. The US Senate has been a drag of fair play and democracy from day one! For the record, the US Supreme Court, wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the People, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Learn, if you can, MJ. So far you seem committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how to think. � J. A. A. � On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY. Since there has never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy is the one which isn't FAIR. Giving undue power to smaller population states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face. So, the US Senate is and always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- cannot be unconstitutional. What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was an agreement between Sovereign States. The Senate is THEIR representative body. Amendment 17 curtailed yet another check on Federal power. Regard$, --MJ The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options& help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options& help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.-- Freedom is always illegal! When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment