Today on Blogcritics
Home » A Republic if You Can Keep It

A Republic if You Can Keep It

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

Over 200 years later, Benjamin Franklin would be proud that the country he helped create has indeed kept the form of government he and the other founders laid out for us. From the election of George Washington as our first President until present day, our electoral process has not changed. Individuals from each State go to the ballot and cast a vote for their candidate of choice. Votes are tallied for that State and the candidate with the most votes in that State receives the electoral votes. Although there are some States in which the electoral votes are distributed by Congressional District and cast for candidates accordingly. That may be about to change.

According to WallBuilders.com Senator Hillary Clinton has promised to introduce in the Senate a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. Those of you living in populous States such as New York or California (I myself live in New York), may find this Amendment to be beneficial to you, it was not however, what our founding fathers intended.

The idea behind abolishing the electoral college is due largely to the 2000 election, with many feeling Bush actually lost the election, and without an electoral college, a recount in Florida would not have been needed. If however the election were to be decided on a popular vote basis, not only would a recount in Florida have been necessary, it is very likely a recount in every state would have been necessary as well. The number of votes separating Gore from Bush amounted to one half of one percent of the votes, clearly Bush would have requested a recount nationwide if it were not for the electoral college.

In that same election Gore carried only 676 counties, while Bush carried 2,436 counties. Geographically speaking, Bush had won in a landslide, however because large parts of our population are concentrated in certain States, Gore managed to win the popular vote. This begs the question, if the President were to be decided by popular vote alone, would voters in rural areas be completely ignored by the candidates? As Wallbuilders.com points out:

Indeed, without the electoral college system, candidates would logically spend their campaign courting voters in the most populous urban areas such as Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, Washington, D. C., Miami, Seattle, etc., rather than visiting cities in more rural areas — cities like Wichita, Birmingham, Amarillo, Cheyenne, Springfield, Tulsa, etc. Additionally, since larger urban areas tend to be more liberal than the rest of the nation, presidential campaigns would therefore cater predominately to liberal interests.

National Popular Vote Inc. is leading the charge in this debate, their purpose is "to study, analyze and educate the public regarding a proposal to provide for the nationwide popular election of the President." This group actually advocates bypassing a Constitutional amendment to alter our electoral process, and they are asking the States to do it on their own. Their proposal calls on states to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the highest vote count nationally. If enough states do that, the candidate with the most votes nationally would be guaranteed to win the election. The Washington Post reported Maryland is ready to do just that:

The bill, which the Senate approved 29 to 17 yesterday, would award the state's 10 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide — not statewide

My advice to Maryland voters, stay home on election day.  Your votes will no longer matter. The Maryland legislature has effectively nullified its residents votes with this bill. If a candidate were to receive enough votes nationwide he (or she) would receive all of Maryland's electoral votes, even if the voters of Maryland voted overwhelmingly for that persons opponent. The Washington Post also is reporting:

"California lawmakers passed a version of the bill last year, but it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). This year, lawmakers in one chamber of the Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado legislatures have approved such a measure, but it has not yet made it through the other chamber, according to National Popular Vote Inc., the California-based group pushing the idea."

Ironically the idea behind this "movement" is that certain States are ignored in Presidential elections. The outcome of this movement however will guarantee those States are ignored in the future! What Presidential candidate will feel it necessary to campaign in Maryland when they know they will get Maryland's electoral votes by winning more populous States such as New York, California and Texas?

Those in favor of abolishing the electoral college feel a Democracy is a superior form of government to a republic. Our founding fathers (whom I consider substantially wiser than Hillary Clinton) adamantly disagreed. In fact, the Constitution guarantees a republic form of government. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"- Article IV Section 4

John Adams once said "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Over 200 years ago our founding fathers gave us a Republican form of Government, the question now is, can we keep it?

Powered by

About Charles Signorile

  • moonraven

    It’s about f-ing time.

  • Sisyphus

    Unlikely to be ratified by the states. The amendment would benefit the states having populations greater than average and dilute the influence of the less populous states. Numerically, there are many more less populous states, which would (theoretically) tend to vote against the ratification of such an amendment.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    IMO support for this idea should be grounds for impeaching Sen. Clinton and removing her from office.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    If you do away with the Electoral College in the name of “democracy” then you must also do away with the United States Senate for the same reason…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Unlikely to be ratified by the states. The amendment would benefit the states having populations greater than average and dilute the influence of the less populous states. Numerically, there are many more less populous states, which would (theoretically) tend to vote against the ratification of such an amendment.

    And that is the reason why this proposed Constitutional Amendment will never pass 2/3rds in the Senate…

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Re #3: Dave,
    Why is Clinton’s supporting this idea, whether a good or bad one, an impeachable offense legally?

  • troll

    sarcasm in the face of the impeach Bush arguments – ?

  • moonraven

    This should have been done years ago so that, like every other country I am familiar with, one voter equals one vote.

    It is anachronistic and reflects the elitist views of the founders.

    It is undemocratic to maintain the electoral college, and it prevents successful campaigns for party nomination by folks from states with low electoral college votes.

    Nalle, you can’t have it both ways–call for support of Bill Richardson (New Mexico has 5 votes–which given the history of NM elections Richardson cannot even promise would go to him, as The Dead of Rio Arriba County are a political force to be reckoned with) and for maintaining the electoral college.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    The mistake in your logic is in assuming that more democracy would be a good idea.

    And Lee, it may be a stretch to suggest impeachment. Perhaps a trial for treason would be more appropriate. Advocating the destruction of our constitutional form of government ought to be some sort of crime, at least when engaged in by someone who might be in a position to actually do it.

    Dave

  • Sisyphus

    “Perhaps a trial for treason….”

    So in your warped world view, the mere proposal and/or support of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an act of treason. Wow. You’ve fallen off the outer edge of the right wing. Good luck finding your way back.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    funny…i disagree with doing away with the Electoral college…but i don’t find anything treasonous in suggesting an alternative or offering something as an Amendment

    far different than …oh say, violating the Constitution blatantly with things like unlawful wiretaps, suspension of a citizen’s rights under the Constitution (Jose Padilla) and a few other things

    such are the blinders of partisans

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Sissy, proposing an amendment which would destroy our basic form of government and eliminate the fundamental protections for the rights and interests of individuals is treasonous, whether it can be prosecuted realistically or not.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    how can offering an Amendment in a legally delineated manner be treason by either the letter or spirit of the Law?

    some eccentric billionaire could start the work to offer an Amendment that all Citizens are required to wear mauve propeller beanies on every alternate Thursday…

    it’s silly, but in no way treason

    both my example, and the bit under discussion have about the same chance of ever getting brought up on the floor of the Congress, much less passage and brought to the States for consideration

    artificial drama over nothing

  • troll

    nope – it’s Dave’s artificial drama with a purpose ie to smear the opposition

  • Sisyphus

    “proposing an amendment which would destroy our basic form of government and eliminate the fundamental protections for the rights and interests of individuals is treasonous”

    Even if I agreed with your premise, the proposed amendment does none of those things. I don’t favor the amendment because it doesn’t go far enough. We really should be looking at doing away with our goofy “winner-take-all” elections and putting into place a proportional voting system. It is more representative than our current system and has the added benefit of eliminating the domination of the two political parties.

    Don’t fix it if it ain’t broken. But a whole lot of government is broken and desperately needs fixing.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    to be Fair, troll…the original Poster started it in the Article

    i checked the link for the source but there’s no substantiation ni the piece itself…but i don’t doubt there are some boneheads who think doing away with the Electorals is a good idea…it’s not…

    me…i’d like to see the guy who gets the second highest electoral vote be the VP…like it used to be in the Constitution…that got changed, with no cries of “treason”…but i think it would go a long way if those provisions were brought back into practice…with the opposing Party holding the VP seat…Impeachment gets some extra teeth, as well as providing another level of originally Intended checks and balances…

    but i digress…

  • troll

    jaz – actually I think that author did an admirable job of avoiding flame words like ‘treason’ and ‘impeachment’ in his presentation and stuck to some pretty rational arguments against the one man one vote movement

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    point taken, troll

    for troll, in the Spirit of the holiday, sort of…

    heh

  • Sisyphus

    “i’d like to see the guy who gets the second highest electoral vote be the VP…”

    That’s what I’m talking about with proportional voting, but also in the legislature. In simple terms, with winner-take-all, a 51% majority elects their representative into office, whereas the 49% “losing” minority has NO representation at all. It would be more fair if the 49% minority of a given district was represented proportionally.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    Sisyphus, what you’re talking about is a complete change in the system, whereas what i spoke of was how it was originally outlined in the Constitution

    part of my purpose for mentioning it was to draw attention to the Fact that our ways of electing some folks have changed, with no charges of “treason” when done properly as the Constitution itself lays out

    the other part was as i stated, it restores another layer of “checks and balances”…imagine the Possibility of VP Gore after 2000, and how things might be different(or even VP Dole…etc)

    but Congressional Districts are supposed to be the smallest unit of Representation, so being a bit binary there serves the overall purpose if you remove artificial gerrymandering

  • Sisyphus

    “what you’re talking about is a complete change in the system”

    Yes, I know. It’s an idealistic view, probably not without its own flaws and I’d have to know the details before supporting such a change (anyway will never happen in a million years). But it’s an interesting, alternate approach worth looking at, especially on the state and local level.

  • bliffle

    “If you do away with the Electoral College in the name of “democracy” then you must also do away with the United States Senate for the same reason…”

    Doing away ith the senate is a good enough idea to stand on it’s own.

    If we do not convert to a Unicameral legislature, the only option for under-represented states like NY and CA is to split into several states, each, and demand more senate seats.

    Do you want that conflict? Probably an armed civil war?

    For clearly the current mal-distribution of senate seats is unfair, and an unfairness that is bottled up too long will result in civil turmoil. Witness the civilrights history of the past. The vietnam draft turmoil. Indeed, the vietnam war itself.

  • bliffle

    Nalle: “And Lee, it may be a stretch to suggest impeachment. Perhaps a trial for treason would be more appropriate. Advocating the destruction of our constitutional form of government ought to be some sort of crime, at least when engaged in by someone who might be in a position to actually do it.”

    Thus Dave Nalle reveals that he is either a hysteric or a neocon apparatchik. Since he has had (short) periods of calm in the past one must assume the latter.

    If proposing an amendment amounts to treason then what of the numerous people proposing Defense Of Marriage Amendments? Etc.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Bliffle, stupid though it is, the Defense of Marriage Amendment would not change the basic structure of the government. That’s what I object to, not the general concept of amending the constitution appropriately. I also object to past amendments that make fundamental changes, like the 16th.

    Dave

  • http://www.constitutionallyright.com/test.html Charles

    I didnt write this to accuse Hillary of treason, nor was it my intention to imply that. If Hillary proposes such an amendment, as she promised she would, it would not be treason.

    I do not like the idea behind abolishing the electoral college, but the responses to this article which imply treason are just as ludicrous as Hillary’s proposal.

    The Constitution was setup in such a way that if the people feel it no longer applies to modern times it can be changed. Wether or not you agree with Hillary’s proposal, it is important to remember it will take a 3/4 vote from the states to make it pass.

    The bill that Maryland passed should be considered treasonous because they intend to intentionally ignore the voters of their State in favor of the national majority. If an amendment to the Constitution were to pass, it would be because the will of the people prevailed.

    I do not belive though such an amendment could, or should pass.

  • bliffle

    “…Defense of Marriage Amendment would not change the basic structure of the government.”

    Is this a Constitutional requirement for amending the constitution? Where did you read that in the constitution?

    Or is this just something you invented ad libitum to attempt justifying your hysterical outburst against Hillary? Did Ann Coulter infect you with some disease in an (unreported) personal encounter?

  • moonraven

    It’s one PERSON, one vote, misogynist pig.

  • troll

    good point…my apologies to all for my insensitivity and misogynist failings

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Dave,
    Are you sure it’s quite logical and reasonable to defend the position that it’s treason to “change the basic structure of the government” through the legal amendment process, just because you disagree with the amendment?

    The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to change the basic structure of the government.

  • moonraven

    I cannot believe that someone actually mentioned LOGICAL and Dave Nalle in the same sentence!

  • Doug Hunter

    When do I get to vote to take rich people’s money away and give it to myself?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Are you sure it’s quite logical and reasonable to defend the position that it’s treason to “change the basic structure of the government” through the legal amendment process, just because you disagree with the amendment?

    Probably not. But I inherently oppose any amendment which would do away with basic protections for the rights of minorities, which this amendment would.

    The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to change the basic structure of the government.

    No, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee protection of the rights of states and individuals so that the various state legislatures would ratify the Constitution. They make no institutional changes to the basic structure of the government or to the electoral process.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    When do I get to vote to take rich people’s money away and give it to myself?

    In 2008, assuming you’re a trial lawyer or a labor organizer.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    does that mean we get to go back to the VP being the person with the second highest electoral vote count?

    cuz changing that did alter the structure

    (as stated earlier, i’m for it…MUCH better than both coming from the same Party like we have now)

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I’d sure support that, Jaz. You clearly would to. If we look back to the one time it actually happened – Adams/Jefferson – the results were generally pretty positive for the country.

    However, I don’t think that was a fundamental change in the structure of the government. Things like getting rid of the Senate – as was proposed earlier – or this amendment to get rid of the electoral college are much more profound and dangerous.

    Dave

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    #32: So, if the Bill of Rights was abolished you can foresee no negative institutional changes to the basic structure of the government occuring at all?

  • moonraven

    The Bush Admistration has already eliminated much of the Bill of Rights anyway.

    Ammendments I, IV, V, VI and VIII are already history. That’s half of the ten.

    And t doesn’t seemtobother you gringosone bit….

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Lee, where do you get that out of anything I wrote? The fact that I understand the reason for the existence of the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean I oppose it.

    But the key thing is that the rights in the Bill of Rights do NOT originate in the Bill of Rights. They exist independent of it and pre-date the Constitution. The Bill of Rights merely exists to codify and reiterate them so they won’t get glossed over. If anything the basic rights reflected in the Bill of Rights trump the entire Constitution.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    Hmmm. Is that why they cancelled the right of habeas corpus–that had been with us in the western world since the Magna Carta of King John?

    You think you have that right, Nalle. Go to the airport wearing a tee shirt with I love Austin in Arabic letters on it, and tell the security folks that you were born in Lebanon.

    Then, at least we will never hear from your demented sorry ass again….

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Last I checked the right of habeas corpus was still intact for US citizens.

    Whenever I fly internationally my birthplace is on my passport and no one has raised an eyebrow so far.

    How’s the habeas corpus in Mexico, btw?

    Dave

  • Clavos

    How’s the habeas corpus in Mexico, btw?

    It doesn’t exist whenever the Procuraduria (AG) doesn’t want it to.

  • moonraven

    Dave, Wrong–You can be declared an “enemy combatant” even though you are a US citizen–check it out–and no habeas corpus. Just bye bye [Edited] Dave and Buenos Días Guatanamo….

    What about that arabic tee shirt?

    In Mexico not only do we have habeas corpus–we have its more sophisticated version–which is also the case throughout Latin America–called AMPARO. If you get an amparo they cannot even arrest you.

    But you KNEW that, of course–since you are an expert on Latin America…

  • http://www.constitutionallyright.com Charles

    Moonraven, although you are right that you can be declared an enemy combatant even if you are a US citizen, you are wrong in stating you do not have the right of habeus corpus. The idea that the military commissions act stripped rights from Americans is a lie pushed by the liberal media. See Here, Here, and Here.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Charles, I read the blog entries you linked to in #43. And they ALMOST hold water…but what about Jose Padilla and Yasir Hamdi? Those were two native-born American citizens who were held without charge, without access to counsel, and without the right to seek writs of Habeas Corpus – the former being Habeas Corpus – Hamdi for over two years, Padilla for three and a half.

    You are correct if you mean that Moonraven has not been stripped of the rights of Habeas Corpus, or that ALL Americans have been stripped of that right, but since 2001, at least two Americans HAVE. And that’s fact.

  • moonraven

    Charles posted links to HIMSELF and the site, The Conservative Right.

    Give us a break.

    Show us the text of the law that contradicts what I said.

    THAT would be considered a legitimate SOURCE of INFORMATION.

    An opinion site–where you are trying to promote YOURSELF, is not a source of anything but PROPAGANDA.

  • Clavos

    Interesting point about Charles’ links, mr.

    They’re reminescent of your constant citing of opinion and propaganda sites like venezuelanalysis and commondreams as “legitimate sources of information.”

  • moonraven

    I have never cited SITES. I have occasionally RECOMMENDED sites for folks interested in reading about topics from a PROGRESSIVE slant.

    And I have occasionally cited articles on those sites which have been reprinted from other venues.

    You have cited ONLY The Miami Herald, which is so under the thumb of the Miami Mafia that it was forced to reinstate reporters who had been fired for taking money from the MM and from the US government to write propaganda against Venezuela and Cuba.

    Waaaayyyyy big difference–and the ususal bogus reasoning from Clavos.

  • JulieL

    “My advice to Maryland voters, stay home on election day. Your votes will no longer matter. The Maryland legislature has effectively nullified its residents votes with this bill. If a candidate were to receive enough votes nationwide he (or she) would receive all of Maryland’s electoral votes, even if the voters of Maryland voted overwhelmingly for that persons opponent.”
    This simply isn’t true. The bill in Maryland (and in all other states where it has been proposed) would only go into effect once enough states (who together possess the majority of the electoral votes – 270)have enacted identical legislation. Until this happens, Maryland will continue to award all of its electoral votes like any other state.

  • Clavos

    I have never cited SITES.

    Hairsplitting obfuscation. You admit you have cited articles from those sites and recommended the sites themselves as sources.

    And I have cited MUCH more than The Miami Herald; including the NYT, WaPO, WSJ, several Latino sites (in Mexico and Venezuela), The Guardian, The Economist, Times of London, several Aussie sites, EVEN venezuelanalysis (on one occasion), etc., etc.

    Once again, you lie.

  • moonraven

    Clavos,

    Even if I lied in every post from here till doomsday I would still be morally superior to you.

    Lying doesn’t happen to be my thing.

    [Personal attack deleted]

  • Clavos

    Sticking to pattern still eh mr?

    You can’t refute the truth of my comment, so you fall back on the ol’ non sequitur ad hominem…

  • moonraven

    Non sequitur–no. Everything follows absolutely linearly from your comments.

    I have already indicated that you do not qualify as an ad hominem target–and why.

  • Clavos

    More BS and no response.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Charles posted links to HIMSELF and the site, The Conservative Right.

    Give us a break.

    Show us the text of the law that contradicts what I said.

    THAT would be considered a legitimate SOURCE of INFORMATION.

    Once again you’re being incredibly deceptive. The article of his own which Charles links to includes the text of the law you’re asking for and his analysis of it, as well as text directly from the Geneva Convention which is relevant to the issue. It may be his analysis and opinion of what the documents mean, but the original source material is there for everyone – apparently except you – to see.

    The other two articles are much the same, and as you failed to notice, they are also by Charles. They are again, point by point analyses of the source documents to dispute claims about the MCA in articles published in other media. And frankly he makes a convincing case based on the original documents.

    I’ve done a similar analysis of the MCA – wrote it when it first passed. I never published it, but if you like I can make it into an article and publish it here on BC. I’m sure you’d have some fun with it.

    Dave

  • http://www.documentsillustrative.com Wayne

    It is unquestionably true — that a constitutional amendment, proposed, can be treasonous. The exact same concerns were expressed when debating the 14th — because you cannot constitutionally amend the constitution with an amendment that changes the form of government that is guaranteed and that all officers are sworn to uphold.

    Consider the following, in convention, Monday, July 23, 1787:
    – Resoln 18.[17] “requiring the Legis: Execut: & Judy of the States to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union,” [16] taken into consideration.
    – “Mr. GERRY moved to insert as an amendmt that the oath of the officers of the National Government also should extend to the support of the Natl Govt which was agreed to nem. con.”
    – “Mr. GHORUM did not know that oaths would be of much use; but could see no inconsistency between them and the 17. Resol: or any regular amendt of the Constitution. The oath could only require fidelity to the existing Constitution. A constitutional alteration of the Constitution, could never be regarded as a breach of the Constitution, or of any oath to support it.”

    What the People and the States are guaranteed by the Constitution is a Republican form of government, and the Federal cannot guarantee to the States a form of government that it is not. How can the Federal guarantee to the States a Republican form, when the Federal is not? To suggest such a thing is to wreck the whole. To get rid of the Electoral College would be to place the final nail in the coffin, disenfranchising the States from “their” creation, dissolving them into one mass and rendering them completely and utterly impotent, changing our once great republic into something even worse than a pure democracy, where we will be mere subjects to one National State, the weaker helplessly governed by the most densely populous and powerful territories that will have no problem subduing and oppressing the weaker States and Counties and rendering them irrelevant — exactly the opposite of what the framers were trying to correct and guard against and sending us not forward, but backward more than 200 years; and, in ways, even worse, to under that which we were oppressed before the revolutionary war.

    Further, to suggest that the Federal government is a “State” is absurd, for the Federal government is nothing more than a governing body instituted by the “member” States for the benefit of “their” common defense and general (commercial) welfare. The Federal government, not being a sovereign commercial State, nor instituted to act as such other than in a limited capacity when exercising its sovereign power over treaties and war, cannot be anymore a State than the governing head of the European Union or the head of the United Nations. For, the only powers of the Federal government are those explicitly given up by the States; and, those not given up to the Federal government by the State Legislatures, or to the States by the People, remain with the People and not with the Federal government. (Amendment X)

    The People, therefore, are as bound by the Constitution as are the State governments and their legislatures, as is the Federal government. The People, by mere popular vote, may not “will” new powers to the Federal government either through judicial or legislative encroachments upon other members States or their People, nor by unconstitutional or treasonous amendments.

    What is without a doubt is that the framers (the “State” delegates representing the “States;” for the Constitution and Union were being formed first for the commercial welfare of the States and not the People,) were setting out to cure the tribulations due to the excesses of democracy — because there was too much democracy. The resulting Constitution that came out of the convention was to cure the evils of democracy, with a Constitution that guarded against democracy! To make such radical changes to the constitution by amendment and not by convention would indeed be treasonous. Once you understand the reason that the Constitution was sent to the People instead of the States for its ratification, so as to be legal and not a treasonous and lawless assault and encroachment on its current, intended and guaranteed form — a form to which all officers of the United States and the Several States are today “bound by Oath or Affirmation” to support (Article VI.) — it becomes clear; for the States are also not empowered today, as they were also not empowered then, to ratify such alterations; with such alterations being no different today as was then, than that of making and establishing a new constitution and new form of government.

    Behold, more irrefutable truth…

    In convention, May 30-31, and Sept 17, 1787:

    “Mr. GERRY …Democracy, the worst he thought of all political evils,…”

    “Mr. Randolph said He was for offering such a check as to keep up the balance, and to restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy.”

    “Mr. GERRY. The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.”

    “Mr. MASON, argued He admitted that we had been too democratic.”

    “Mr. RANDf observed that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the U. S. laboured; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy:”

    “Mr. RANDOLPH disclaimed any intention to give indefinite powers to the national Legislature, declaring that he was entirely opposed to such an inroad on the State jurisdictions, and that he did not think any considerations whatever could ever change his determination. His opinion was fixed on this point.”

    “Mr. MADISON said that he had brought with him into the Convention a strong bias in favor of an enumeration and definition of the powers necessary to be exercised by the national Legislature;”

    Tuesday, June 12, 1787:

    “Mr. RANDOLPH The democratic licentiousness of the State Legislatures proved the necessity of a firm Senate. The object of this 2d branch is to controul the democratic branch [House] of the Natl Legislature. If it be not a firm body, the other branch [House] being more numerous, and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it.”

    THE FEDERALIST NO. 10: MADISON:

    “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”