Tags
Benjamin Franklin, Court packing, democracy, Harris/Biden, joe biden, Kamala Harris, representative republic, Senator Mike Lee, The Constitution, tyranny of the majority
When the Constitutional Convention ended, so the story goes, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin:
Well Dr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?
He replied:
A Republic—if you can keep it.
I’ve long known Americans, in far too many places, aren’t getting much actual history in school. When D/S/C indoctrinators are spending most of the class time telling kids how racist they are and how evil their country is, from before its founding to today, I suppose there’s not much time left for actual history. There is particularly little time left for the nature of governments.
But that didn’t mean the night [the vice presidential debate] was free of a political firestorm. And the biggest one may have been lit by Utah Sen. Mike Lee.
Following the debate, Lee tweeted:
The tweet caused more than a few people to raise their eyebrows.
Lee and his camp later explained democracy alone isn’t sufficient, which is why there are checks and balances in a democratic constitutional republic. But in the meantime, many on Twitter expressed outrage.
Like this:
Chris Peterson—surprise!—is a D/S/C candidate for Utah’s Governor:
The “Scroller Of Doom” is dooming himself:
And Steve Schmidt worked for George W Bush and John McCain. He’s—surprise—a never Trumper.
Lee’s spokesman replied:
When…Conn Carroll, was asked if the senator could explain the thinking behind his tweet, he said: ‘At a time when Democrats want to pack the Court, eliminate the Electoral College, and turn the Senate into the House, it is very good that Americans are re-reading The Federalist Papers to rediscover why the founders put these specific republican checks on democratic passion into the Constitution.’
When it comes to the Federalist Papers, Carroll pointed to a quote from James Madison that says: ‘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.’
It’s always depressing to see so little understanding among one’s fellow Americans of the bounty America provides. No wonder racist D/S/Cs have so little difficulty stirring up potentially nation-destroying conflict. So, briefly, gentle readers, let’s review. By the way, I’m sure pretty much everyone reading this scruffy little blog knows what I’m about to say, but perhaps you might pass it, and the URL of this scruffy little blog, on to others in need of the information.
Mike Lee is entirely correct: America is not a democracy, and every rational American should be eternally grateful the Founders were among the most brilliant men of any age, and gave us the republic about which Franklin spoke instead. On November 3rd, or months or years thereafter, we’ll be deciding whether we want to keep it, for at least another four years of never-ending seditious threats. Thereafter…?
Alex Leo, Chris Peterson, Steve Schmidt, the “Scroller of Doom” and innumerable others are either entirely unaware of that fact and its absolute necessity, or are ignoring it for nefarious political purposes, like those illuminated by Richard Fernandez:
As the title of this brief article previewed, the Founders well understood the essential flaw of “pure” democracy—one man, one vote: the tyranny of the majority. In such a system, 51% can do anything they please, including deprive the minority of property, liberty even life. It is an utterly chaotic system where as soon as one faction gains the majority—even by fraud—they can set about to punish, even destroy, their political enemies, and ensure they will never again lose the majority. The narrowest majority rules, and there is no restraint on what they can and will do to the minority.
A democracy might be logistically possible in a small town of several hundred souls, but in a nation of well over 300 million it’s quite impossible. The Founders knew this, and they designed our republic to restrain, to the greatest degree possible, the dark side of human nature, the tyranny of the majority, which they knew would inevitably destroy individual liberty and property rights.
So we have a constitutional republic with three co-equal branches of government. It has some characteristics/ideals of a democracy, but with additional protections of the unalienable rights of individuals and significant limitations on the powers of government. It is the latter contemporary D/S/Cs hate with a burning rage. The Federalist Papers and other writings of the time clearly forecast the dangers inherent in even that scheme, and we’re seeing them manifest before our eyes. The Legislative branch has, for a long time, given up much of its power to the unaccountable administrative/deep state, a faction nowhere authorized in the Constitution. The Deep State, in turn, not only makes what amounts to law, it enforces it against the minority—the political enemies of the party in power—often without the barest due process or judicial review. Much of our political turmoil is due to this extra-constitutional, fourth branch of government, created and sustained by abdication of authority and duty by congressmen and senators.
Barack Obama helped push our republic down the slippery slope. He initially said he couldn’t do many unconstitutional things because they were unconstitutional, but then he found a pen and a phone, and mirable dictu! The unconstitutional became the law of the land.
The Constitution was written in large part to prevent the tyranny of the majority. A political party might control the White House, House and Senate, but the Constitution prevents them from depriving the minority of its fundamental human/constitutional rights. Americans may not be legitimately deprived of property, liberty or life. The majority may levy unwise taxes, and enact a variety of other measures that ought to be odious to free Americans, but they may not run roughshod over the rights enumerated in the Constitution.
Many don’t know many of the Founders did not want a Bill of Rights, fearing future politicians would claim the enumerated rights were the only rights possessed by Americans. Others prevailed, and the Constitution was passed and ratified on the condition the Bill of Rights would soon follow.
Another deadly threat is the D/S/C imperative to turn the Supreme Court into a super legislature beholden to D/S/C philosophy. This is what all the talk about “maintaining the [political] balance of the court” is about. There should be no political considerations whatever in court membership or rulings. When D/S/Cs can’t get what they want through the legitimate legislative process, they want the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench. They want the justices of the Supreme Court to ignore the limitations placed on them by the Constitution, and misconstrue, or simply ignore the Constitution when it suits their political purposes.
This is why they want to pack the court. This is why Gropin’ Joe Biden won’t admit this intention until after he wins. Why, if he told Americans the truth, they might decide to vote against him!
This is also why D/S/Cs plan to abolish the Electoral College. Without it, there would have been no America. Without it, the President, and federal policy, would always be decided by the major population centers on the coasts, and the rest of Americans would be ignored, a minority to be abused, deprived and ruled at whim.
That is also why they want to abolish the filibuster in the Senate, turning it into a more exclusive House: the tyranny of the majority.
Do you see the pattern, gentle readers? D/S/Cs are intent on tearing down the constitutional protections that are the foundation of our representative republic, the protections that have made America, above all other nations, strong, prosperous and free.
But why would they do that? Don’t they know they benefit from those same protections? It was the execrable Harry Reid that abolished the Senate filibuster for judicial nominees. Senator Mitch McConnell then warned D/S/Cs they would regret it, and sooner than they imagined, and so they have, as by the end of his term, Donald Trump will have seated about 300 federal judges and three Supreme Court justices dedicated to our republic, and to making decisions based on the Constitution, not D/S/C policy.
The difference is this time, as Richard Fernandez observed, if they win—and they are going to do everything possible to win, by hook or mostly, crook—they are not going to be vulnerable to their own unconstitutional desires. They are going to do away with anything and everyone that might ever stand against them. Oh, Americans will still get to vote—it will be a democracy after all—they just won’t get to elect anyone but an approved D/S/C. As D/S/Cs often say, it doesn’t matter who votes, but who counts the votes.
Constitutional order, law and order, equal justice for all, all of it will be swept away. The greatest governance document ever written by man will be abolished, or merely given lip service and ignored. And if you think government abused Americans under Barack Obama, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
The dim-witted Beto was right: they are absolutely going to take our guns. Tyranny doesn’t work if the peasants are allowed to keep weapons—or speak freely.
Ignorant and malicious people are upset Senator Lee told the truth, the facts rather than the D/S/C “truth” about the very nature of our republic. They don’t want the facts to get in the way of their truth, the “truth” Joe Biden told us they embrace rather than facts. If too many Americans understand this election is actually about keeping our republic–our liberties and prosperity–the Harris/Biden ticket may be torn up before the tyrannical show begins.
Under Harris/Biden, America will become a permanent one-party state, the very definition of tyranny—a tyranny of the majority.
Reblogged this on Liberty & Freedom.
What militia you gonna join there, Mike?
Dear Doug;
OK, I’ll ask the usual question: what part of anything I’ve written is inaccurate, implausible or simply wrong? Is America not a constitutional republic? Were the Founder not concerned with restraining the tyranny of the majority? Have the possibilities I’ve described not taken place in other nations, and are they not taking place now? And have the D/S/Cs not specifically stated their desire to do what I’ve attributed to them?
Divide the question, Doug.
You think it’s too complex a question?
No, just a childish question from a petty person.
I simply asked a question.. that you thus far have chosen to deflect. Trump supporters are feeling the pressure of a Trump loss… and you bring up the “tyranny of the majority” which due to your timing suggests you are pointing out the threat/fear of a majority of voters wanting Trump to go… hence you are doing the Trumpian thing and placing doubt on our election process. You also enjoy labeling all fear and threats to the Constitution to some “D/S/C” collective… which seems to imply it’s Trump people against the world of Democrats, Socialists, and Communists…. which to me makes a pack of strange bedfellows (Who are the D/S/C’s.. who’s in charge of them… and who amongst them are in a position of any authority to threaten our Constitution?). Ok.. you’re starting to see Trump is screwing up his own chances of a win. But here’s the thing, Mike… we have Covid getting worse with still no national policy (which I know, you being a loyal Trumpian, just ignore all that “nonsense” and it will just go away on its own), we have the significant political divide that I have been echoing for months will get far worse and IS getting worse with domestic terrorists, militias running amok and waiting for the next subtle affirming Tweet from their Dear Leader, (are we celebrating the Second Amendment yet?), we have a messed up economy, Republicans in elected capacities disorganized and paralyzing the Congress and state governments, election campaigns out-of-this-world, a sick President know one knows how sick or who else will fall sick at his “Kool-Aid” political events, each and every day of the week is a new whacky situation from Trump…. the country is in a real mess, Mike… and you are worrying about Trump not having a second term to make things worse? All this is happening on HIS watch. You seriously want another 4 years of this? Of course you do.. because all this is not his fault…. after all, look at all the good he’s done! Yep.. I’m looking, Mike… at all the good he’s done. So.. to my original question… what militia will you be joining after Nov. 3?
No, Doug, it’s not a complicated question, it’s just a poor one. The question you posed presupposed an affirmative reply to an implied question, i.e. Will you join a militia? You didn’t simply ask a question, you made a statement that Mike was going to join a militia. I suppose you could be disingenuous, or maybe I just overestimated you.
Dear Doug:
The problem is your question assumes the article is beyond the pale, therefore, I must be some out there militia type. Nothing in the article, which was primarily about political philosophy and its consequences, implies that, or any other particular future option.
We’ve also been over this business of being a “loyal trumpian.” I’m loyal to the Constitution. At the moment, Donald Trump has demonstrated by far the greatest fidelity to the Constitution. Joe Biden and the rest of the D/S/Cs–they’re the Democrat Party; I’m engaging in definition of character and intention–have not. Their intentions–clearly and repeatedly stated–would ignore or eliminate the Constitution.
Covid? It’s a virus, and viruses tend not to respond well to “national policy.” As I also noted, if Trump acted like Whitmer, he’d be branded a dictator. But he actually honors the Tenth Amendment, and for that, he’s excoriated. His non-national policies will likely produce a vaccine by the end of the year, something that’s never been done before. He met the needs of all the state governors, and it turned out their needs were virtually all hysteria.
“Militias running amok?” Really. And where would that be? Seattle? Portland? Wisconsin? Chicago?
So. When will you stop doing terrible things to small animals?
I am also a loyal Constitution “person” and I find Trump an appalling example toward it.. an appalling leader by any definition, and as a Christian he is also an appalling moral example. I simply asked that question because it’s apparent you think part of America.. whether you want to believe half or the majority now… wants to destroy the Constitution, hence America, and the guns were all part of the resolution (per SCOTUS interpreting the Second) for “saving” the country. I’m expecting really bad stuff in the weeks ahead.
In a “normal” election I’d likely not be voting for Biden… but I’m voting to get rid of Trump to relieve the country of the chaos.
You just stated…
“I’m engaging in definition of character and intention–have not. Their intentions==clearly and repeatedly stated–would ignore or eliminate the Constitution.”
With that you make my point… you honestly fear there are a number of Americans ready to take power to eliminate the Constitution. I honestly don’t see that threat even close… much less any sort of easy to do.
Hey.. if I thought any candidate wanted to “eliminate” the Constitution and won, then made efforts to do so… and was becoming successful (which would have to be defined specifically)… I’d likely grab my gun also… and very likely die in some hail of idiotic gunfire to defend what was in my refrigerator, itself running off my generator because the electric would likely be shut off. So.. yes.. my first question to you was as it was based on your statements.
Dear Doug:
So when the highest ranking D/S/C politicians tell us, if they get the power, they’re going to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, add as many states as necessary to get an unassailable Senate majority, mandate mail in voting, confiscate guns, etc., this doesn’t seem to be a threat to the Constitution? Keep in mind they need not abolish the Constitution utterly, merely ignore it.
As I am aware thus far, Biden/Harris have been avoiding answering if their intent is to pack the court.. very intentionally. I would surely guess with reasonable accuracy that is in direct response to the GOP position “suddenly” changing regarding selection of a replacement SCOTUS justice from their 2009/16 Obama era whatever stance by the likes of McConnell and Graham, et al, to not select a new justice close to an election… and now shoe’s on the other foot and they wanna grab the opportunity. Dems seem to be enjoying casting a reactive threat their way for pulling their change-of-heart stunt just so Trump can feel good when he challenges the votes.
Not heard the primary candidates actively campaigning on removing the electoral college. I certainly see nothing wrong with discussing it given a lot in the political world has changed since 1789 and having elections where a president is elected by the minority of the popular vote does seem out of whack. But no one is going to remove the electoral college… especially overnight, because we’ve had it for so long and people normally avoid changing traditions.. except Trump, of course.
Nothing wrong with mail-in voting. No evidence, past or present, of grand universal schemes (yep.. you get vote fraud little attempts, but you’ve gotten that in regular voting). More to the point is that Trump has done nothing to stop Russian tampering in our election, albeit not true voter fraud….. yet.
Confiscate guns? There are two things I have heard my entire life. The first, Social Security is going bankrupt… the second, the “next Liberal administration” is going to take our guns away. Neither has happened, nor will it… and there have been any number of Liberal majority-held Congresses over the decades if that was a true threat.
You’re afraid the threat is that they will ignore the Constitution? You mean like Trump has for the last 3.75 years? Gotta admit, Trump has been a damn good teacher on what a president can get away with just in using delays on litigation and ongoing appeals, but seems to me suits can be filed to make Constitutional challenges and you have a Conservative Court now to provide the “balance” you want to have.
So.. no, Mike. You’ve been a good Trump follower buying into all the fears he’s tossed your way.. but none of it amounts to much. Even if you are fearing some social cultural Liberal-inspired swings riding along on a Biden/Harris administration with the political correctness, #MeToo, BLM, LGBT, M-O-U-S-E, (whatever initials are currently in vogue), not much is going to happen because if Biden/Harris win we all will be way too concentrated in recovery mode between the economy, the pandemic, and the political divide to worry much about other things like social upheavals that keep Conservatives awake at night.
Dear Doug:
OK. Examples, please, of exactly how Donald Trump has in any way ignored or damaged the Constitution.
Not sure anyone person can truly “damage” the Constitution.. but ignore it? Depending on one’s perspective (political whims) pretty much anyone can be accused of “ignoring” it. That simply means there’s no one willing to bother to levy a challenge or follow through with appeals on the degree of the “ignoring”. Now, “violating”.. that’s another thing… and being accused of a violation is hardly imposing guilt in a court of law. Then there’s the idea that a sitting Prez can do anything he wants until he’s not Prez anymore. Which then means, Trump can do any damn thing he wishes… and with the Senate under his command.. impeachment efforts of any kind will go nowhere. So.. my accusations that he has ignored, stretched, bent, overtly violated, whatever, the Constitution, will likely never be resolved.
But, just to spout off a couple… Trump’s almost daily violations of the emoluments clause… his complete and overt obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation… inviting the Russians to hack Hillary’s emails… blah, blah…
Well, it is indeed the logical fallacy known as the “complex question”, the classic example being “Have you quit beating your wife?”
It assumes an answer to an unstated question in its formulation.
If you are admitting to using a complex question in your argument, then you are admitting your deliberate use of deceptive practices and flawed logic in order to score points.
Shame on you.
……or, it simply is just what it appears to be, a question.
Q: “Have you quit beating your wife?”
A: “Have you quit barking at the moon?”
Doug, but you’re the one barking at the moon. You’ve previously admitted, on this site, that you’re not interested in changing your mind, and you know that you’re unlikely to persuade anyone here, yet you keep coming back with these lame statements and straw man arguments. Why?
Why does man climb mountains? Why does man explore space? Why does man seek out answers to that which he does not understand? Why reply to a blog inhabited by people who love Trump in spite of his appalling inhumanity and incompetence?
I follow about a half dozen Conservative blogs pretty much to keep in tune with the general mood and arguments flowing about… and a couple, like this blog, show some level of patience in allowing me an alt-voice to their opinions… and most certainly I can wake up the folks enough for some dialog. Otherwise, you all are just sitting around agreeing with each other, backslapping the latest post… and missing the greater priorities confronting America that are not about fearing Liberals.
Perhaps the larger question is.. why don’t more Trump people follow non-Trump blogs?
Dear Doug:
Again, you’re assuming anyone that is not a D/S/C is a Trump worshipper of sorts. That kind of deranged pseudo-religious devotion for politicians is pretty much reserved for D/S/Cs. I’ve never met anyone that thinks Donald Trump is going to save the world, only that he tends to honor the Constitution and puts America and Americans first, something absent in so many other politicians of both parties. A great many constitutionalists/Republicans, etc. do in fact read outside their political leanings. They do not fear such things, and do their best to be well informed.
Sadly, I’ve almost universally found D/S/Cs cannot and will not reciprocate. Trying to discuss issues with them is an exercise in futility, as they almost always end with them stalking off in a rage after calling me a racist.
So the answer to your final question is: they do.
No… “some” do.. maybe… and that concession is simply under the “nothing is 100%” rule.
The funny thing about being “well” informed is that only extends as far as the next person who doesn’t agree with your “well-informed” opinions, who will readily admit you are the one who is “ill-informed”. It’s not overly popular to declare a person as being “well informed yet having a faulty set of conclusions”.
Regarding your dilemma with encounters with your D/S/C persons… I’ve mentioned this before any number of times. What Trump supporters fail to comprehend is that while they are praising the “but look at all the good he’s done”, your D/S/C’s dislike Trump the Person, for all his anti-social faults and narcissistic, dictatorial behavior, and responsibility for all the nation’s chaos since it’s occurring on his watch. You’re trying to argue issues and they hate the person.. hence you being called a racist (largely by extension).
Dear Doug:
Oh no, I do indeed understand D/S/Cs are thinking with their emotions, most of which revolve around rage and hatred. I’m just hoping to help them someday join the adult world.
Dear The other Phil:
I appreciate your perspective, but Doug, and all other contrary voices are always welcome at SMM, so along as they’re polite about it.
“…pointing out the threat/fear of a majority of voters wanting Trump to go… ”
EXACTLY. that’s the difference between a DEMOCRACY and a REPUBLIC! in a democracy a simple majority dictates to EVERYONE. the problem with them is that what the people in new York and California want is not what the people in texas and Nebraska want. capisce?
Doug, the election was stolen. Donald Trump should have been the true winner.
If you say so.
Doug, you disagree?
Of course I do.
Doug, whatever happened in Donald Trump’s past is irrelevant.
To whom?
Not anybody specifically. That was generic.
The media and politicians for some reason ignore the Dem’s/Left’s cry for the elimination of the Electoral College and DC becoming a state requires constitutional amendments. I doubt that the fear of the founders of VA and NY controlling the presidency forever will escape the small states realizing that CA and NY would now control the presidency. I doubt that 3/4 of the states would not approve such an amendment. The facts are important even if one doesn’t want to hear them.
Should be: I doubt that 3/4 of the states would approve such an amendment.
Dear Alan Reasin:
Quite, which is why we have to have mail-in ballots and an entirely politicized Supreme Court so the people can vote the right–left–way on every issue.
ever heard of the national popular vote interstate compact?
Reblogged this on It's Karl and commented:
And since a technologically advanced society can’t be disarmed, even if it wants to be, it will ultimately be necessary to roll things back.
Dear karllembke:
Thanks for the reblog!
Pingback: Biden Speaks: Declaring Legitimacy | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Fearing The Rule Of Law | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Local Education Control: Prima Facie Evidence | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Second Civil War, 26: Alternatives | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Where’s Our Little Red Book? | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Rittenhouse Case, #13: Kyle Acquitted, Racial Grievance Industry, Prosecutors, Hardest Hit | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty 2022: Part 1 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Drive-By Murderers: Maybe They’re Just Evil? | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The January 6 Hoax: The Least We Can Do | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2022, Part 6 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Second Civil War #29: Prepare For The Worst | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The New Iran “Deal”: Treason? | Stately McDaniel Manor