| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
publius2k
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: ! California votes neutered by Wyoming ! |
 |
|
Consider that the 2 Senators from California [with a population of over 36 million] can be
'checked and balanced', vetoed, neutralized by the 2 Senators from any of the 49 less
populous states, even Wyoming with a mere 1/2 million people.
Consider that while California is allotted just 2 Senators to represent its over 36
million people, the least populous 21 states [Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah,
Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode
Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming] with
an aggregate population of under 34 million people are granted 42 Senators.
That's the way it was planned. Ain't Madisonian 'democracy' grand?!
+ + + + +
Toward an American Revolution
Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions
Jerry Fresia Chapter 3
The Constitution: Resurrection of An Imperial System
Go to http://www.cyberjournal.org for the whole book online....
Note Madison's remarks: "...as had been observed (by Mr. Pinckney) we had not among us
those hereditary distinctions of rank which were a great source of the contests in the
ancient governments as well as the modern States of Europe...We cannot, however, be
regarded even at this time as one homogeneous mass....In framing a system which we wish to
last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An
increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor
under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its
blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of
indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of
the former."
"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage,
cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect
is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in
process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, when the number
of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and
manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections? and,
unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this
day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors
would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just,
our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation.
Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable
interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to
protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to
be this body; and, to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office,
the better will these views be answered."
Toward an American Revolution
Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions
Jerry Fresia Chapter 3
The Constitution: Resurrection of An Imperial System
Go to http://www.cyberjournal.org for the whole book online....
On Madison's proposed bicameral legislature:
" “Hence it is that the two Branches should be elected by Persons differently qualified;
and in short, that, as far as possible, they should be made to represent different
Interests.”
“Under this Reasoning I would establish a Legislature of two Houses. The Upper should
represent the Property; the lower the Population of the State. The upper should be chosen
by Freemen possessing in Lands and Houses one thousand Pounds, the lower by all such as
had resided four Years in the Country and paid Taxes. The first should be chosen for four,
the last for two Years; They should in Authority be coequal.”
Benjamin Franklin challenges the ethics of Madison's proposal:
"Several Questions may arise upon this Proposition. 1st. What is the Proportion of Freemen
possessing Lands and Houses of one thousand Pounds Value compared to that of Freemen whose
Possessions are inferior? Are they as one to ten? Are they even as one to twenty? I should
doubt whether they are as one to fifty. If this Minority is to chuse a Body expresly to
controul that which is to be chosen by the great Majority of the Freemen, what have this
great Majority done to forfeit so great a Portion of their Right in Elections? Why is this
Power of Controul, contrary to the Spirit of all Democracies, to be vested in a Minority,
instead of a Majority? Then is it intended or is it not that the Rich should have a Vote
in the Choice of Members for the lower House, while those of inferior Property are
deprived of the Right of voting for Members of the upper House? And why should the upper
House, chosen by a Minority have equal Power with the lower, chosen by a Majority? Is it
supposed that Wisdom is the necessary Concomitant of Riches, and that one Man worth a
thousand Pound must have as much Wisdom as twenty, who have each only 999? And why is
Property to be represented at all? Suppose one of our Indian Nations should now agree to
form a civil Society, each Individual would bring into the Stock of the Society little
more Property than his Gun and his Blanket; for at present he has no other; we know that
when one of them has attempted to keep a few Swine, he has not been able to maintain a
Property in them, his Neighbours thinking they have a Right to kill and eat them whenever
they want Provision; it being one of their Maxims, that Hunting is free for all; the
Accumulation therefore of Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in
every Society must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of
the Society, in the Execution of its Laws; private Property therefore is a Creature of
Society and is subject to the Calls of that Society whenever its Necessities shall require
it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are
not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to
the Distinctions of Honour and Power; but as the Return of an Obligation previously
received or the Payment of a just Debt. The Combinations of Civil Society are not like
those of a Set of Merchants who club their Property in different Proportions for Building
and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the
Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the
important Ends of Civil Society are the personal Securities of Life and Liberty; these
remain the same in every Member of the Society, and the poorest continues to have an equal
Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance or Industry may
occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations I am sorry to see the Signs this
Paper I have been considering affords of a Disposition among some of our People to
commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a Predominancy in Government, a Choice
peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature, to be proudly called the upper House,
and the other Branch chosen by the Majority of the People degraded by the Denomination of
the lower, and giving to this upper House a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the
lower. I hope therefore that our Representatives in the Convention will not hastily go
into these Innovations, but take the Advice of the Prophet, “Stand firmly [crossed out?]
in the old Ways, view the ancient Paths, consider them well, and be not among those that
are given to Change.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
--
Said American [Indian] Chieftain Acuera in reply to
the invader de Soto's demand for submission to
the king and the church so as to 'enjoy the benefits
of 'civilization' and service:
"I have long since learned who you [European Christians] are,
through others of you who came years ago to my land;
and I already know very well what your customs and
behavior are like. To me you are professional
vagabonds who wander from place to place,
gaining your livelihood by robbing, sacking and
murdering people who have given you no offense.
... Accordingly, I and all of my people have vowed
to die a hundred deaths to maintain the freedom
of our land. This is our answer, both
for the present and forevermore."
-- "Florida of the Inca" (1591)
by El Inca [aka Garcilaso de la Vega]
- First American Author to be published. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
John Mayson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: Re: ! California votes neutered by Wyoming ! |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, publius2k wrote:
| Quote: | Consider that the 2 Senators from California [with a population of over 36 million] can be
'checked and balanced', vetoed, neutralized by the 2 Senators from any of the 49 less
populous states, even Wyoming with a mere 1/2 million people.
|
This was done on purpose to prevent the large states from overshadowing
the wants and needs of the small states. US History 101. What exactly is
your point here?
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
publius2k
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: Re: ! California votes neutered by Wyoming ! |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:58:54 -0600, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, publius2k wrote:
Consider that the 2 Senators from California [with a population of over 36 million] can be
'checked and balanced', vetoed, neutralized by the 2 Senators from any of the 49 less
populous states, even Wyoming with a mere 1/2 million people.
This was done on purpose to prevent the large states from overshadowing
the wants and needs of the small states. US History 101. What exactly is
your point here?
|
K-12 public school indoctrination that is.
Why does ONE nation, united, need a divided legislature? One part for the haves to veto
the wishes of the havenots. That's all.
The reality is more like what Madison candidly and belatedly admitted, as quoted in my OP.
He was terrified of equality and democracy. As he noted, any one man-one vote system
would threaten the hoarded wealth of the 'rich and famous'.
Note Madison's remarks: "...In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should
not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of
necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life,
and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time
outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal
laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former."
Heaven forbid! a leveling, an equalizing of the fruits of labor! An end to the parasitic
leisure class.
"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage,
cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect
is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in
process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, when the number
of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and
manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections? and,
unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government?
In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of
landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place." !!!!!
Notice how it is the Republicans to day trying to prevent people from voting, by tricks,
deceit and unethical 'legal' challenges. Same Madisonian mentality.
"If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of
the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to
support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be
so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The
Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and, to answer these purposes, they ought to
have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the
longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered."
The House of Lords, code named the Senate, was not elected by the people, but selected by
the various state political machines which were controlled by, the filthy rich, the
'opulent minority'. This is the ONLY 'check and balance' Madison was interested in, a
scheme whereby the voice of a few rich parasitic land lords would cancel out the wishes of
the vast majority, the producing workers.
That is the true function of the Senate and for a similar reason why the President is not
elected by the people. The people merely express a preference at poll, and then the
electorial college kicks in to insulate the decision from the people, at least slightly.
Madison rigged the system so that the rich would control both the Senate and the
Presidency. Then, by restricting the critical selection of the judiciary to those two,
the rich control it also. President nominates justices, judges and federal attorneys and
proposes treaties. The Senate 'advises' and consents. The ONLY democratic part of this
sham is the House of Commons where the Representatives sit in proportion to the
populations of their respective districts. And they are excluded from much of the
process.
In effect, in the constitution Madison set up a triple veto 'check and balance' over any
popular desire presented by the House of Representatives.
Until the people wake up to that reality, changing faces of the players is meaningless.
The rules have to be changed, in favor of the people. As it is now, when CHANGE threatens
rule, the rules get changed. Note the new federal law being used to purge voting lists,
with a decided impact on the poor and minority population..another great Republican
initiative. Dems are not much better, since they too are bought out by the investor
class. They just participate in an age-old good cop/bad cop game and nothing much
changes. Real change will not be tolerated.
--
Said American [Indian] Chieftain Acuera in reply to
the invader de Soto's demand for submission to
the king and the church so as to 'enjoy the benefits
of 'civilization' and service:
"I have long since learned who you [European Christians] are,
through others of you who came years ago to my land;
and I already know very well what your customs and
behavior are like. To me you are professional
vagabonds who wander from place to place,
gaining your livelihood by robbing, sacking and
murdering people who have given you no offense.
... Accordingly, I and all of my people have vowed
to die a hundred deaths to maintain the freedom
of our land. This is our answer, both
for the present and forevermore."
-- "Florida of the Inca" (1591)
by El Inca [aka Garcilaso de la Vega]
- First American Author to be published. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maxwell's demon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: ! California votes neutered by Wyoming ! |
|
|
publius2k wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:58:54 -0600, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, publius2k wrote:
Consider that the 2 Senators from California [with a population of over 36 million] can be
'checked and balanced', vetoed, neutralized by the 2 Senators from any of the 49 less
populous states, even Wyoming with a mere 1/2 million people.
This was done on purpose to prevent the large states from overshadowing
the wants and needs of the small states. US History 101. What exactly is
your point here?
K-12 public school indoctrination that is.
Why does ONE nation, united, need a divided legislature? One part for the haves to veto
the wishes of the havenots. That's all.
|
Actually, California is one of the richer states. But why should
everyone in the "nation" be forced to follow the dictates of the
majority, even if that majority is determined by population? Who
decided that it is "ONE nation, united"? Certainly not the original
inhabitants, as your sig illustrates. By what right then should the
people in Delaware, for example, be forced to follow the dictates of the
people of California?
| Quote: |
--
Said American [Indian] Chieftain Acuera in reply to
the invader de Soto's demand for submission to
the king and the church so as to 'enjoy the benefits
of 'civilization' and service:
"I have long since learned who you [European Christians] are,
through others of you who came years ago to my land;
and I already know very well what your customs and
behavior are like. To me you are professional
vagabonds who wander from place to place,
gaining your livelihood by robbing, sacking and
murdering people who have given you no offense.
... Accordingly, I and all of my people have vowed
to die a hundred deaths to maintain the freedom
of our land. This is our answer, both
for the present and forevermore."
-- "Florida of the Inca" (1591)
by El Inca [aka Garcilaso de la Vega]
- First American Author to be published. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
publius2k
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: Re: ! California votes neutered by Wyoming ! |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 10:38:04 -0500, Maxwell's demon <OldGuy@home.net> wrote:
| Quote: | publius2k wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:58:54 -0600, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, publius2k wrote:
Consider that the 2 Senators from California [with a population of over 36 million] can be
'checked and balanced', vetoed, neutralized by the 2 Senators from any of the 49 less
populous states, even Wyoming with a mere 1/2 million people.
This was done on purpose to prevent the large states from overshadowing
the wants and needs of the small states. US History 101. What exactly is
your point here?
K-12 public school indoctrination that is.
Why does ONE nation, united, need a divided legislature? One part for the haves to veto
the wishes of the havenots. That's all.
Actually, California is one of the richer states. But why should
everyone in the "nation" be forced to follow the dictates of the
majority, even if that majority is determined by population? Who
decided that it is "ONE nation, united"? Certainly not the original
inhabitants, as your sig illustrates. By what right then should the
people in Delaware, for example, be forced to follow the dictates of the
people of California?
|
misses the point that we are all forced to follow the will of the rich minority. At least
the will of 51% of all is slightly more legit than the will of the top 5%.
--
Said American [Indian] Chieftain Acuera in reply to
the invader de Soto's demand for submission to
the king and the church so as to 'enjoy the benefits
of 'civilization' and service:
"I have long since learned who you [European Christians] are,
through others of you who came years ago to my land;
and I already know very well what your customs and
behavior are like. To me you are professional
vagabonds who wander from place to place,
gaining your livelihood by robbing, sacking and
murdering people who have given you no offense.
... Accordingly, I and all of my people have vowed
to die a hundred deaths to maintain the freedom
of our land. This is our answer, both
for the present and forevermore."
-- "Florida of the Inca" (1591)
by El Inca [aka Garcilaso de la Vega]
- First American Author to be published. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
