I know it's been a little while since I've written anything, and I apologize for that. It's been a rather busy time for me, and I haven't had a lot of extra time for writing down my thoughts, but now I have something that I have been considering for a while, and would like to share with you.
How many of you really believe that the United States of America is a Democracy? Really?
I know, I know.... it's been taught to you for years, it's all over the news, and in the schools. Democracy is good, anything else is bad. Well, that's not true. Actually, Democracy as a form of government is horrible. Democracy means that NOTHING gets done without a full vote by the people. That sounds great on the surface, doesn't it? Until you realize that means the people can vote for ANYTHING, and it must happen. That's called mob rule, not rule of law. That means, if the majority of people want anyone with red hair executed, all the red heads in the country are now in danger of being arrested and killed. Laugh all you want, it's true, and horrible things can (and have) happened in a Democracy.
This is the reason why our Founding Fathers made the US a REPUBLIC, NOT a Democracy. Does anyone know the difference? If you do, consider yourself above average, because most Americans don't know the difference, and many of those that do still think that we live in a Democracy, because that's what they've been told through their lives. Here's the big difference. In a Republic, you elect PEOPLE to pass laws, control the Government, and represent your position on things. You vote for a person who you believe will uphold your views (at least the majority of them) on the issues you feel strongest about. In a Democracy, you directly form the laws your darned self, and the Government blindly carries out the will of the people, without regard to justice. Republics are (supposedly) safer, as the people are the check on the officials, the officials are the check on the people, etc.
When the US was formed, they took it a step further. Instead of just having a Senate that controlled things, with maybe an Emperor or President or Prime Minister sitting as the 'Head of the Senate', the Founding Fathers wanted to have checks and balances on the checks and balances. So, things were divided thusly. The House or Representatives would be formed to allow the PEOPLE of the several states to elect a person from their own individual districts that would best represent the will of the people of that area. These individual districts are referred to as Congressional Districts, and are redrawn every 10 years following the census. Each elected representative has roughly 650,000 people that he or she represents. Each state must be allowed at least one (even if only 5 people live in that state, they get one), but will be allowed more and more representation as their population grows. For instance, California has 53 representatives, where Montana has 1.
The Senate was formed to represent the interests of the States. The will of the people is not always the best thing for the state, and the will of the state is not always the best thing for the people. In order for anything to really get done, the Senate (made up of two people from every state) and the House (based on population, as described in the paragraph above) need to agree on it. As the Senate was formed to represent the States interests, the Senators were originally elected BY THE STATES GOVERNMENTS, NOT BY THE PEOPLE. This was changed in 1913, and the election of Senators was given to the people (mob rule) instead of being an appointed position from each states legislature, as was intended. (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm).
Now, I'm sure some of you are wondering what the problem is with this. Let's break it down a bit. If you were going in for a hearing on child custody, and you had a lawyer, and your crazy hooked on crack ex had a lawyer, and you wanted to make sure that you had a fair hearing, and that you got your case across as effectively as possible, so that the judge could make the right decision, would you allow your lawyer to be paid for (and thus, representing the best interests of) your crazy ex?
Perhaps that sounds a little out there, but I assure you, it isn't. By taking the naming of the Senators away from the States, and giving that power to the people, that means that the States have NO REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON DC. This means that the rule of the people, even when unjust (and sometimes flat out ignorant) will be imposed on everyone else, even when it's discriminatory, illegal, violates their civil rights, or violates the constitution. I submit, as example A, the new 'Obamacare' law that REQUIRES all Americans to purchase health insurance. A flat out violation of our liberties as an individual. We are required to make a purchase, or pay a fine to the IRS (which is completely unrelated to the health care industry, and also a huge violation of our civil rights, as it forcibly removes our money from us before we even see it - IRS = Wealth Redistribution System = Communism..... and yet, we all silently submit for fear of prosecution). Many states have joined together to challenge this retarded law, at least in part, and we wait to see what will happen with that, however, if the STATES had the representation in Congress that they were originally given, and should still have, this law would have been challenged back and forth between the House of Representatives and the Senate until there was something agreeable to both, which then would have passed. Certainly, health care reform is something that could benefit millions of people in this country, but what gives anyone the right to STEAL from you, to give to someone else?
YOU give the GOVERNMENT the right to STEAL from you, if you choose to do nothing and allow the same things to continue happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment