text:
Shouldn't democracy have a backup system, where a majority of the people assembles in the streets and votes-out their entire corrupt leadership at once? And isn't this unquestionably a right of free people everywhere? And this is badly needed in some nations such as Iran and Cuba. The only problem is that we also need a system to rapidly elect new replacement leaders. And the way we do democracy today doesn't support rapid elections. So we also need a new constitution that can elect new leaders quickly. Here is the plan:
Step-1: Street protesters elect temporary leaders, each holding the signatures of 500 people that have assembled under a new democratic constitution. Nobody does anything until a majority of that nation has assembled in this way. But once a majority has assembled in this way, the new constitution comes into effect, and these thousands of elected protest leaders representing half the nation gain a veto right over the old government for 1-week, when both depart office.
Step-2: The 1-week period is needed for a 2nd and a 3rd election. These are elections where actual leaders speak and are elected, and where the whole nation votes. Here communities meet in groups of 250, and 3-days later elect one person as their "Sub-Senator". Then these Sub-Senators meet in groups of 200, and 3-days later elect 10% of their numbers to the Main-Senate. For a nation of 250-million voters, this comes to 1,000,000 Sub-Senators, and 100,000 Main-Senators. This is 187 times as many lawmakers as today –– and all are elected without needing any campaign money or media coverage.
No campaign money — no media coverage
Using small groups like this is needed so the democracy can quickly self-assemble and quickly elect leaders. But there are many other advantages — like how elections will be based on personal acquaintance. The voters will know their Sub-Senator from their neighborhoods. And the Sub-Senators will know each other from working together in their Sub-Senate groups. So people get elected based on either living nearby, or working together in the Senate — not based campaign donations, expensive campaign ads, or coverage by the corrupt media. Also, using great numbers of tiny voting precincts makes it much harder to understand our elections, let alone influence them.
The new constitution comes before the revolution
With peaceful democratic revolutions, the new constitution must come before the revolution. If we haven't all agreed on a new path, then there can be a Reign of Terror period as in France of the 1790s. But if we have a new plan (and most people can agree on it) then it is easy and safe to upgrade our democracies. Download the new Constitution here.
Handhelds: Site menu in in box above
$12.7-billion per lawmaker?
The US federal government spends ~$6.8 Trillion annually, and there are 535 lawmakers. So each Washington DC lawmaker spends $12.7-billion each year. Obviously, this is far too much money under the control of too few people, and we need more lawmakers. If we had one lawmaker per 2,500 voters, the US would have around 100,000 Main-Senators and each lawmaker would spend around $68-million. Surely we can afford one manager per $68-million in annual spending. Also surely, having 187X as many lawmakers will make our democracies at least 187 times harder to lobby and corrupt. Our legislature will also be smarter, better managed, and harder to rip-off.
Most government spending gets stolen
How corrupt is government? Each year, the US spends $12,624 per pre-18 student, and the average classroom size is 20.9 students. Total: $263,842 per classroom. And the average US teacher makes $63,645. And if we rented 1,000 sq.ft. of office space for a classroom, this might cost $2,000/ month or $24,000 per year. Total $87,645 per classroom. So we have $263,842 in total spending per classroom, with $87,645 for teachers and classrooms, and $176,197 for other things. Literally, 1/3 goes to teachers and classrooms, and 2/3 goes for what? This is how corrupt our governments are.
Multi-channel Democracy
Having 100,000 Main-Senators allows us to have 10 specialized "sluices" of 10,000 that will both make and implement the nation's laws. Also, having 10 specialized channels should make our democracy 10 times faster and more granular in its management than having only one channel. And the channels/ headings will be like with a president's cabinet ministers today: education, healthcare, military, etc.
A million-man Sub-Senate
The US has around 250-million voters. So a 1:250 Sub-Senate will have around 1-million part-time Sub-Senators. These will have many roles like:
1/ Listen to the people and elevate good ideas.
2/ Determine the truth independently of the openly-corrupt paid commercial media.
3/ Produce their own media channels, and their own wikipedias by election.
4/ Produce free educational media for children, professionals and tradespeople.
5/ Help administer government in a granular way.
6/ Serve as a staffing pool for election to the higher Senates, for judicial duty, and as government managers.
No distant capital – Let's drain the swamp completely
Having 100,000 lawmakers makes a single national capital impractical. So the new constitution calls for 36 regional voting centers in the US, and the elimination of Washington DC as a seat of government. This will make our government more accessible to the people. It will also make lobbying and a seizing power much harder.
The US Constitution that the entire "Free World" copied
1/ It allowed slavery in the land of the free.
2/ It was not only written without a bill of rights, its authors went by horse to the 13 state approval (ratifying) conventions to campaign for their new constitution — while at the same time campaigning against including a bill of rights. History records their many speeches as the Federalist Papers. The states fortunately didn't listen and put-together their own a bill of rights .
3/ Section 1.2 of the US constitution says: "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have at least one representative." How can the US Constitution be so tolerant of oligarchy? One representative per state? How can this be? Were the authors of the US constitution secretly angling for a future oligarchy of only 3 lawmakers per state? Was the current US constitution written to ensure our freedoms, or to eliminate them? My website explains several more unforgivable "mistakes" in the current US constitution.
4/ Patrick Henry ("The true father of the American revolution" according to Thomas Jefferson) went around to the ratifying conventions campaigning against our current constitution saying: "There is to be a great and mighty president with the powers of a king". This among several other valid criticisms.
The US began with one lawmaker per 1,200 people
Under the 1st US constitution (1777-89) there were over 2,000 lawmakers for 2.4 million Americans. So there was one lawmaker per 1,200 people. Today, under the 2nd US constitution (1789-today), there are 435 Representatives for 335 million people — almost one lawmaker per million people. Is this a narrow democracy or a broad oligarchy? What is the difference between the two? Where is the line between the two? Do we have a democracy or a democratic oligarchy?
Cassius Dio, c.200AD, Reign of Augustus 52.40
"If you want a monarchy, but fear the accursed title,
you can avoid the title by ruling as a Caesar."
Thucydides, c.400BC, History 2.65, speaking about Athens under Pericles
"What was in name a democracy, was in fact rule by one man, one first citizen."
Apple dictionary definition of REPUBLIC
"A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
Strange how the word re•public uses the Italian word for king (re=king) and this form of government IS actually a sort of public king situation. Strange how we all allow ourselves to live under a public king situation.
President = king = prime minister
You know, the non-elected/appointee administrations still run all of our nations, just like when we were ruled by kings. It doesn't matter what the front-men look like, the important part is the non-elected administration running things below the decorative surface.
Rome had a fake senate/democracy for 5-centuries
What about the US democracy that the whole modern world copied?
Is it fake too? It looks like an oligarchy. In fact it looks like a 1-in-1-million oligarchy checked and balanced by a 4-year monarch and 9 appointee lawyers.
Willliam Penn 1682
"Let the people think they rule,
and they will be ruled."
In today's world of video recording and forensic data analysis… Can't we figure out a less corrupt form of democracy?
This website has a new constitution that is ready for people to self-assemble under. It also has instructions for how this self-assembly process works. See: ROMAP = Rules Of Mustering And Propagating. This website also has over 1,500 pages of common sense ways to improve democracy and help assure freedom.
Here are over 1500 pages of common sense ways to make democracy less corrupt, among other topics accessed by the site directory box.
Some sections of the new constitution
Free speech & free assembly—8,836 words
Arms and armories—7,760 words
Networks, recording, anonymity, monitoring, electronics–6,968 words
Police, prosecution, courts & jail—22,000 words
Mafia drugs and tobacco — 2,800 words
Immigration—11,600 words
Economic freedom—12,700 words
Government finances–– 11,000 words
Changes—only 538 words
Total length of the new constitution—328,493 words
We can fix everything at once
There are so many things wrong with the world today. I spent 12 years listing these things and coding a new 820-page constitution to fix most of it. This constitution is much better for everyone worldwide. Please believe me, it is possible to fix almost everything at once.
How to eliminate ALL ballot box corruption
When we the people go to vote, we should vote openly in front of many cameras. (Government video cameras + anyone who wants to show up.) We print sheet of paper at home with our name, voter ID#, and election choices on it. Then we walk through a video gateway, pausing for a moment, with our ballot up to our chest. Doing this will entirely eliminate all ballot box corruption. It may cause some vote selling and voter intimidation, but these are much smaller and easier to manage problems. Open voting like this will eliminate foreigner voting, Multi voting, and anonymous mail ballots. No more stolen election ever again.
How to slash lawmaker corruption
Require lawmakers to vote secretly, at those 36 voting centers described above. This is so our lawmakers can vote as they like, and ignore their donors. Do you realize that the only thing the US Constitution commands twice is the recording of how each congressman votes? Strange how the US democracy does so many things wrong, like voting secrecy… Was our democracy designed to be correct?
No vote spends over one percent of the annual budget
This rule prevents oversized "omnibus" appropriations bills and the corruption they produce. Also, lawmakers can't tack on spending to a bill that is already one percent of budget.
Freedom of speech is for real people
Why do we allow corporate managers to divert company millions towards lobbying for their own political agendas? Why do we allow fictional citizens to run ads that try to shape how real citizens vote? Why do we let the gigantic cash flows of fictional citizens drown out the organic voice of the people? Non-human entities should not have the right of free speech like real people. They should have to stay out of politics, and social norms, and healthcare, and stick to the actual features of what they make and sell.
If their shareholders wish to talk about these things, it is their right as human citizens. It is just the non-human entities, the fictional-citizens that should not be allowed to participate in our "democracy of the people, by the people and for the people" — Because they are not people, but fictional entities.
Break up the giant media companies
We should limit their size, so their credibility doesn't rise above the voice of real people. Otherwise giant corporations will corruptly define reality for us all.
Election irregularities = Do-over
Getting an honest vote is the most important aspect of our elections — and nothing else matters in comparison. Where there are problems with any election or vote, there must be an audit do-over, where everyone votes again on video. This is so we can trust our elections, and figure out what the crooks are doing — and bring that to an end.
Voting hour, not voting day
If we all vote over one hour, it makes our elections less susceptible to both corruption and violence, because the crooks have a smaller time window to work in. The people pushing in the opposite direction are helping to increase election corruption — perhaps intentionally.
Both sides/parties corrupt our elections
In the United States, the conservatives corrupt our elections by deleting poling places and causing long lines. The liberals corrupt our elections with foreign voters and loose voting requirements. Here are some non-partisan and common sense ways to make democracy less corrupt worldwide.
Preventing ballot box corruption
When voting is over, ballot boxes normally get put on a truck and driven off — in the dark — to a central counting location. Instead, ballot boxes should remain at each polling place under continuous community monitoring by all who care to watch them, or record them. Ballot boxes should remain sealed and untouched (and in one place) from the start of voting until they are opened and counted by a long line of people in succession — some from that district, and some from outside. Or maybe some from each party. Then all the ballot-counters sign the score cards for that poling site. Then all the scores are posted on the county website. Thus we have decentralized "2-hour" election results that are much harder to corrupt or cancel.
Cameras reduce illegal voting
Crooks are afraid of cameras. Today we have cameras everywhere we have valuable things. Why don't we have video cameras at our precious polling places? Why don't we have cameras and finger print readers at the ballot collection tables? These will surely reduce "multi-voting", and voting by non-citizens.
All voting machines are inherently corrupt
This is because we can't guarantee the secrecy of the data, which starts being produced in the morning. So the people corrupting our elections now get ballot data in the morning, and all day long, thanks to the voting machines. See next:
Print-out ballots ≠ paper ballots
When we combine the morning data with print out ballots we imagine people using computer programs to modify and re-print entire cloned ballot boxes with new print-out ballots. Then it only takes moments to swap-out entire ballot boxes. When voters use pen and ink, they write in countless ways that make voter fraud much harder to pull off. Thus pen and ink ballots add an important layer of security to our elections — A layer of security that print-out ballots don't have.
Why are we not assuming the worst?
Of course the voting machines will eventually get hacked, or changed-out, or otherwise corrupted. How can we allow these no-witness black-boxes in our elections when they are totally unnecessary? We need to go in the opposite direction — towards continuous community observation, video, and an abundance of witnesses.
Not all states can be trusted
Why not have redundant voter registration and verification systems run by the national, state, and county governments? Or maybe we should have multiple counties checking each other's rolls to assure accuracy. This isn't hard or expensive. It's just keeping names on lists. Surely a little data redundancy here couldn't hurt — blockchain style: national, state, and a few counties all matching up.
How mail ballots help enable vote-selling
1/ We vote in secret at the polls so people can't sell their votes. The secrecy makes how a person voted impossible to verify. This way, the people buying votes can't tell if the voter is lying about how they voted. However, with drop-anywhere mail-box ballots (as they currently work) there is no secrecy. The voter can fill-out the ballot in front of a vote buyer, who is 100% assured of having bought one vote.
2/ The people buying mail ballots can mail-in the ballots themselves as needed. So they can easily add a few more votes at the 11th hour. Now, they don't want to lose the election, but they also don't want a conspicuous landslide victory. So they aim low, and top-off with just enough last minute mail ballots to achieve a narrow election victory — a familiar pattern in about 1/6 of US national elections recently.
3/ In trying to be inconspicuous in one way, the vote corrupters have over time become even more conspicuous in a different way. For it is astronomically unlikely that this pattern is natural — this pattern where the liberals consistently comes from far behind to a razor-thin win over the conservatives in 1/6 of elections.
4/ Mailbox ballots totally defeat the benefit of secret voting at the polls. This is because all of the vote selling migrates over to mailbox ballots. There is simply no point in having the security risks of secret voting if we have mail ballots. We might as well all vote openly and on video if we are using ballots that can be anonymously dropped in any mailbox.
5/ China, Russia, and lots of Americans know what our signatures look like. So signature matching doesn't provide much real security.
6/ Vote selling/buying is totally illegal. So not many people are going to come forward and admit to it. So we should expect that we will not hear much about the subject.
If lawmakers voted in secret,
like the people do at the polls then:
1/ They could vote as they like, and ignore their donors — because their donors will not know how they voted. Thus our democracy will be less influenced by gifts and favors.
2/ Donors won't know if their gifts and favors worked — and they won't expect much because of secret voting. So less money and effort will be spent on trying to lean and influence our democracy.
3/ Lawmakers stop swapping votes, because nobody can tell if the other side voted as promised. Then, without verifiable vote swapping, the corrupting power of political parties is mostly eliminated from the democracy.
4/ People won't know how their lawmakers voted. So politics will be less about pulling more government spending towards one's district and agenda — and more about what is good for the nation overall. This will reduce wasteful "pork barrel" spending, and make government more efficient financially.
5/ All of the above. Democracy improved in 4 important ways.
The downside of secret lawmakers voting
We won't be able to vote-out lawmakers who voted wrongly — because we won't know how they voted. But this isn't a good reason. This is because over the past two decades, incumbents in the U.S. House of Representatives have been re-elected 94% of the time. Also, if we have term limits, or ban consecutive terms, there simply is no voting-out of lawmakers. So secret lawmaker voting is at worst 4-steps forward, and 1-step backwards. And at best it is simply 4-steps forward.
What do we do it the next election gets stolen?
1/ We are still using corrupt voting machines.
2/ We still don't have nationwide voter ID laws.
3/ We are still using easy-to-sell mail ballots.
4/ Our election watchers still can't video record election corruption.
Let's get ahead of the ball, so we're stronger. Let's have a plan in advance. It's not impossible to get half of America to agree to giving democracy an update.
https://andrewmelcher.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Constitution-2023-09-30-PDF.pdfhttps://andrewmelcher.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Constitution-2023-09-30-PDF.pdfOur democracy's representation-ratio is much too narrow
The representation ratio is perhaps the most important aspect of a democracy's design. What is the ratio of leaders to citizens? Narrow democracies, with too few elected leaders are essentially the same thing as broad oligarchies. Thus narrow democracies suffer from many of the same problems that broad oligarchies suffer from:
Problem #1 Intelligence: Which democracy will have an expert in every subject? The one with 50 lawmakers, or the one with 50-thousand lawmakers? Which brain is smarter, the one with 50 cells or the one with 50-thousand cells?
Problem #2 Isolation: Which democracy is more accessible and can better hear the voice of the people? The one with 50 lawmakers, or the one with 50-thousand?
Problem #3 Elitism: Which democracy is less elitist, and more like the common man? The one with 50 lawmakers or the one with 50-thousand?
Problem #4 Ease of seizing power: Is it easier to seize power from 50 lawmakers or 50-thousand? Also, broad democracies can be decentralized, meeting in multiple cities— This makes a seizure of power even harder to pull off.
Problem #5 Vote value: Lawmakers in a 50-man legislature cast very powerful and very valuable votes — votes that are definitely worth buying and selling. But if the legislature has 50,000 men in it instead, each vote is worth 1,000 times less and the cost of corruption rises by 1,000-fold. Also, the ability to profit from one's position in a 50-man or 500-man legislature offers a powerful incentive for crooks to fight for election.
Problem #6 Lobbying: It's easy to visit 50 lawmakers, but it's hard to visit 50,000 lawmakers — 1,000 times harder. Thus the broader democracy is 1,000 times less vulnerable to lobbyists.
Problem #7 Appointees: What a huge error of scale we make. There is no way that 536 elected people (435 representatives +100 senators +1 president) can adequately manage a government for 330 million people. There is no way that a few hundred decision makers (no matter how brilliant) can manage the affairs of a few hundred million people. At one-in-a-million, there simply are not enough democratically elected people to properly run our huge nation.
As a result, our democracy is under-staffed with elected decision makers. So, most work is done by non-elected appointees. Today these appointees are our democracy's, eyes, ears, analysts, and report writers. In fact, these non-elected appointees even undertake the all-important job of writing laws for our legislatures, as well as doing just about everything for our 4-year presidential monarchs.
Thus appointees not only frame the issues our democracy votes on, but they also write the solutions, and manage their implementation — just as they did under the figurehead monarchies we supposedly got rid of in 1776. Our one-in-a-million elected lawmakers mostly choose between the plans the non-elected bureaucracy has come up with. And this choice they make when they are not distracted by campaigning for re-election — as 43% of our the national lawmakers in the US must do in any given year.
So the 7th vulnerability of narrow democracy is that too many important duties fall on appointees. By contrast, if we made our democracy broader, we could easily exclude non-elected people from all top positions in government.
Now isn't democracy based on a presumption that elections provide us with the best leadership? How come our democracy isn't managed through and through by elected officials? How come we only have a thin coating of 536 elected officials "spray-painted" on the surface of an immense appointee bureaucracy employing millions of people?
Problem #8 Campaign money: The average US representation ratio between our two legislatures is 1-in-1.54 million voters. (This is the weighted average is 1:580,000 & 1:2.5 million). Therefore, the congressional candidates in our narrow and oligarchic democracy have to reach voters by-the-million — and this is an expensive thing to do.
And because our democracy bizarrely lacks even an official website for campaign videos, (let alone broadcast media time), our candidates have come to rely on expensive ads in the paid commercial media.
Now because of the effectiveness of these expensive media ads in reaching voters by-the-million, the candidates that run lots of expensive ads tend to win elections. And the candidates that get lots of campaign contributions can afford to run lots of expensive ads. So basically, we have a democracy where election success tends to be purchased with campaign contributions. In other words, we have a corrupt democracy.
But we all know this, and we allow it anyway. We consider this corrupting money (and the influence it purchases) a necessary evil of democracy. Essentially, we use an admittedly corrupt democratic design: One where campaign contributions routinely sway who gets elected, and which platforms are supported. It is a corrupt democracy where the will of the people is often subservient to the will of the biggest campaign contributors. And these big contributors are mostly not even real people, but fictional entities — entities that sell voting rights by the share on stock exchanges.
However, democracies can easily be too broad
Problem #10 Cost: If everyone is taking time to get informed about society's decisions, who is going to work? And if our 1:100 best are working as decision makers, it will cost at least 1% of GDP, and probably more like 3% to 5% of GDP, because these are often our most productive people. So full-time 1:100 democracies and too broad and too costly. And even 1:250 full-time democracies may cost up to around 2% of GDP.
Problem #9 Intelligence: If we take our 1:2,500 best, and make them our group decision makers, we are going to get smarter decision makers that if we take our 1:25 best.
Problem #11 Supply and demand: If we only "confirm" 1:500 people as Senators each year, demand for the status will certainly exceed supply, and people will work hard for the honor of being a Senator and serving the public for a year. If we confirm 1:50, we may have trouble finding enough good people willing to give it their all — especially if we have annual elections and sensible incumbency restrictions.
Problem #12 Media corruption: When everyone votes, many people fail to take enough time to properly inform themselves. Many of these people then base their decisions on something they saw in the openly corrupt paid commercial media. Thus media corruption gains sway over our democracy.
The representation sweet spot
Assuming a US electorate of 250-million:
1. 2.5 leaders = 1-in-100,000,000 democracy -BAD-
2. 25 leaders = 1-in-10,000,000 democracy -BAD-
3. 250 leaders = 1-in-1,000,000 democracy -BAD-
4. 2,500 leaders = 1-in-100,000 democracy -BAD-
5. 25,000 leaders = 1-in-10,000 democracy -GOOD-
6. 250,000 leaders = 1-in-1,000 democracy -GOOD-
7. 2,500,000 leaders = 1-in-100 democracy -BAD-
8. 25,000,000 leaders = 1-in-10 democracy -BAD-
9. 250,000,000 leaders = everyone votes -BAD-
1, 2, 3 and 4 all have too few leaders and suffer from the problems caused by excessive concentration of power. On the other hand 7, 8 and 9 all have too many leaders and suffer from the problems caused by excessively diffused power. The sweet-spot therefore is near 5 and 6. The new democracy and new 230-page constitution I propose is in this sweet-spot where corruption is inherently lowest. It uses:
A 1:250 SUB-SENATE of 1,000,000 that elects 1:10 to a
1:2,500 MAIN-SENATE of 100,000 that elects 1:10 to a
1:25,000 OVER-SENATE of 10,000.
This is a "middle-road" representation ratio that lies between two extremes, each extreme having big problems.
Here we note the major defects the current US constitution of 1789:
1/ It allowed slavery in the land of the free.
2/ It was sent for ratification without a bill of rights.
3/ It narrowed our nation's pre-1789 representation ratio from 1:1,200, to what it is today: 1:1,540,000.
4/ It called for "a great and mighty president, with very extensive powers; the powers of a king," in Patrick Henry's words.
5/ It is super hard to change.
6/ It says twice that lawmaker votes must be recorded.
A brief introduction to the proposed democracy
We assume an electorate of 250 million:
Sub-Senate: This part-time body of 1,000,000 once-elected people will:
1/ Listen to the people and elevate worthy ideas.
2/ Determine the truth independently of the commercial media.
3/ Assemble information for the Senate.
4/ Help administer government in a granular way.
5/ Serve as a giant staffing pool for election to the higher national Senates, local Senates, judicial duty, and as government managers.
Main-Senate: This full-time body of 100,000 twice-elected people will both make and execute the nation's laws. The Main-Senate will work in two ways: For important decisions, the entire Main-Senate will vote as one body of 100,000. But for ordinary business, the Main-Senate will vote as 10 specialized legislative channels of 10,000 each (called "SLUICES").
These sluices will be similar to the various congressional committees in the US today, except that there will be about 10,000 lawmakers in a sluice — about 1,000 times more lawmakers than a congressional committee today. Also, each of the 10 sluices will run the nation in its area of specialty. One will run healthcare, another will run the military, another will run the justice system, etc., with the Over-Senate apportioning the workloads. Thus our democracy will have 10 channels, and work 10 times as fast.
Over-Senate: This full-time body of 10,000 thrice-elected people sets the overall course of government and its budget. It also adjusts powers and budgets among the other Senates and sluices. However, the Over-Senate makes no laws, and spends almost no money itself. Thus, the other Senates and Sluices are restrained ("checked and balanced") in their powers and spending. The 10,000-man Over-Senate also interprets the constitution and acts as the supreme judge of constitutionality — replacing our current 9-man supreme court of appointed-for-life, oligarch, super-lawyers.
The new design makes democratic revolutions easier
The new democracy gives the people a way to elect a new government and a new constitution without the approval of the current government. It has a system for staging structured protests that elect temporary "mustering" Sub-Senators. When the people muster the required percentage of the electorate in structured protest, the new constitution they have mustered under is then automatically elected into force. Then, their duly elected formation Sub-Senators become a temporary 7-day mustering Senate that will run the nation.
To oust a dictatorship or monarchy, a majority shall be only 10% of the people. To oust a narrow democracy, a majority shall be defined as half of the largest voter turn-out in the past 4-years. If there has not been a real multi-candidate election in that nation in the last 4-years, then that percentage will be easy to reach.
If the world begins mustering in great numbers, this will hopefully provoke even the Iranians and the North Koreans to muster up and institute democracies in their lands.
Broad incorruptible democracy
Here again is the download for the new democratic constitution ready to be mustered under. And here is the 1,050-page commentary about the new democracy. This new democracy/constitution was designed to be incorruptible. This is in contrast to the 2nd US constitution of 1789, which seems designed to have as many potential back-doors to power as possible — while appearing fair and reasonable.
The illusion of democracy
Today, US style democracy has a single decision making channel that uses 3 groups of mono-elected people in succession. First a house of 435 lawmakers votes. Then their decisions are double checked by a house of 100 lawmakers. Then everything is triple checked by our totally overworked 4-year elected monarch and his appointee administration.
Now, in many ways, a democracy is only as broad as its narrowest law-making, or law-vetoing house. So in many ways, the US government is a monarchy. Of course, if both oligarchic legislatures vote 2:1, they can override the immense power of our presidential monarch. But unless our lawmakers all really want something by a 2:1 margin, the administration of our 4-year monarch largely rules over our entire democracy.
Thucydides, d. 400BC, History, 2.65
"In theory, Athens was a democracy, but in practice it was ruled by just one leader." [Apparently systems of elected "presidential" monarchy are quite ancient.]
Patrick Henry, 1788.06.07
"There is to be a great and mighty president, with very extensive powers; the powers of a king." [Under the first US Constitution, the so-called Articles of Confederation, the US had no president. Here Patrick Henry (the true leader of the American revolution) was speaking out against the new 2nd constitution of the United States, (our current constitution) at one of the state ratifying conventions. Here he was objecting to having a single powerful 4-year monarch with so much power over the new American democracy.]
Patrick Henry
1/ Thomas Jefferson said that Patrick Henry was the true leader of the American Revolution.
2/ Patrick Henry was the first speaker before the incipient US Congress in 1774.
3/ Patrick Henry was the first man to take the stage and openly call for revolution and treason against the king — a capitol offense. Here are his immortal words: "The war has actually begun, our brothers are already in the field. Why do we stand here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet… [That we should buy them with] chains and slavery? God forbid. I know not what course others may take, but as for me: Give me liberty or give me death."
Patrick Henry, 1788.06.07
"There is to be a great and mighty president, with very extensive powers; the powers of a king." [Strange how America forgot who the true leader of the American revolution was. Strange how we forgot that the true leader of the American revolution went by horse from state ratifying convention, to state ratifying convention, campaigning against the ratification of our current constitution.]
Apple dictionary definition for REPUBLIC
"A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
[The word REPUBLIC officially comes from the Latin term RES PUBLICA which looks like REX PUBLICA = Public King. And that term Public King perfectly describes what a republic is. It's a democracy with an elected monarch, and a large appointee bureaucracy running the nation for him. So today, the US doesn't actually have a real democracy, but a REX PUBLIC, an oligarchic democracy "overruled" by a 4-year monarch, who is in turn overruled by 9 appointee super-lawyers on a supreme court.
Thucydides, c.400BC, History 2.65, speaking about Athens under Pericles
"What was in name a democracy, was in fact rule by one man, one first citizen."
Theodore K. Rabb, Last days of the renaissance, Ch. 5
"On the surface, Parliament in England certainly seemed supreme, as impervious to outside influence as the absolutist monarchy in France. For both, however, the first impression disguised the reality that the true ruler of the land was an alliance between elite and monarchy."
Everyone knows the right direction here
We all know that we don't want kings and dictators and oligarchies. And we all know we want to go in the opposite direction — with a very large group of elected people that is too big for anyone to sway. How can we have monarchs, even 4-year elected monarchs in a democracy? And why do we have appointee cabinet secretaries administering our nation?
Broadening a democracy is generally good,
Narrowing a democracy is generally bad
What is the harm of having many thousands of elected officials? Isn't this the opposite of monarchy, tyranny and oligarchy? No modern nation (with the exception of the United States between 1777 and 1789) has ever had a broad form of democracy with even a 1:50,000 representation ratio. Why has this never even been tried? And again, what is the downside of broadening the decision making base in our democracy? Don't people the world over trust the decisions of large bodies more than small ones? And aren't we all willing to change anything in our democracies that looks like a big source of corruption?
One king, one president, one monarch.
The easiest form government to corrupt is when one figurehead is in charge of a giant bureaucracy And not far behind comes oligarchy, where a few men are in charge of a giant bureaucracy.
And it doesn't matter so much if these are omnipotent kings for life, or they have been elected to serve for four years with limited power. Whenever one person or a small group is in charge, the government is most reliant on a non-elected administration.
Cassius Dio, 52.9
"In democracies, the more men there are with wealth and courage, the more they compete for honor, and thereby strengthen the state." [These are men of leisure, with sufficient wealth to spend their days getting invoved, and men of courage, because it was at times quite dangerous to get involved in Roman politics.]
The first US Constitution
From 1777 until 1789, the United States had a first constitution with over 2,000 lawmakers. In 1789 a new constitution (our current constitution) was instituted by 39 men without any authority. This new constitution had only 65 representatives, 26 senators, and a single 4-year elected monarch with extensive veto powers over the other 91 elected people.
On top of narrowing of our democracy by 30:1 towards oligarchy, these 39 men — America's "Founding Fathers" also sent the new 2nd US constitution for ratification without a bill of rights. And they also allowed slavery in the land of the free. They also said twice that all the lawmaker votes must be recorded.
Why no bill of rights?
The current U.S. constitution of 1789 was written by 39 "Founding Fathers" who sent it to the state legislatures for ratification without a bill of rights. This was not only intentional — it was "struggled" for. The quote below (from 1787.10.06, Federalist Papers) is from James Wilson. Wilson was one of the 39 men who produced the current US constitution. Here he was explaining his side didn't include a bill of rights, and why he was riding all over the nation campaigning against including a bill of rights. Note the confusing and obscuring words he used. Note how hard it is to understand what he was saying.
Here we see a lawyer-type defending an indefensible position with intentionally hard-to-understand junk-language. People arguing for a valid cause struggle to be clear. Also, here below we see the sort of person that produced our current prototype constitution.
James Wilson, 1787.10.06, (Federalist Papers)
[In] "answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights[is] a defect in the proposed Constitution; for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested [deprived from], either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence. For instance, the liberty [freedom] of the press, which has been a copious [abundant] source of declamation [public writings] and opposition. What control can proceed from [possibly originate in] the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium [safeguard] of national freedom?" [Again, this is a lawyer defending an indefensible position by hiding its true nature. People arguing for legitimate causes struggle to be clear.]
Written to restrain freedoms
James Wilson was one of the 39 men who produced the current US constitution — the prototype constitution for the modern world. Just above, he was explaining why those 39 men sent their new 2.0 U.S. constitution of 1789 for ratification without a national bill of rights. Clearly this man was not on the side of freedom. Clearly this man struggled to restrain our freedoms rather than assure them. But more importantly, our current 2.0 constitution was produced by 39 men who were mostly on Wilson's side. After all, there had to be a majority to send the new constitution for ratification without a bill of rights.
Gustavus Meyers, History of Great American Fortunes, 1.5
"The Constitution of the United States was so drafted as to take as much direct power from the people as the landed and trading interests dared [take]."
Patrick Henry, 1788.06.07
"The founders of your own [1777] Constitution made your Government changeable: But the power of changing it is gone from you! whither [to where] is it gone?"
[The current 1789 US constitution is famously hard and expensive to change. In fact, it is rather a thing written in stone, almost impossible to change. Apparently once someone got our institutions the way they wanted, they also struggled to make them sacred and unchangeable. The new 3rd US constitution is not super expensive, or super difficult to change.]
The illusion of democracy
It appears that the so-called "free world" uses the weakest and easiest to corrupt form of democracy that could be gotten away with in the 1780s. And this was after the purges under cover of war that happened in the 1770s.
Book title: 1777, The year of the hangman
The title of this book by John S. Pancake cries of revolutionary war purges, but the subject matter of the book is an ordinary revolutionary war battle history. It appears that a book was wholly replaced by another book. Perhaps George Orwell's ministry of truth is real to some extent.
It says "Democracy" on the label of US-style government
But inside the package, isn't it actually 1-in-1-million oligarchy? (536 lawmakers for 330-million people) And isn't this oligarchy "checked and balanced" by a 4-year monarch and 9 non-elected, lawyers on a supreme court?
Cassius Dio, Reign of Augustus, 52.40
"If you want a monarchy but fear the accursed title, you can avoid the title by ruling as a Caesar… In this way you can enjoy the reality of a monarchy without the stigma that is attached to the name."
Cassius Dio, Reign of Augustus, 53.2
"he [emperor Augustus] gave sums of money to a number of senators. This was because many of them had become so poor that they could not take on even the office of aedile, because of the large expenditures demanded of the office holder." [Thus the billionaire front emperor corrupted the senators in the legislature that were supposed to watch over him.]
Our democracy is deeply flawed.
It must be fixed immediately.
Handhelds: Site navigation in box at top of page.
Someone else was there shaping democracy
A foreign interest was quietly struggling to modify the new prototype constitution for the free world. And then when they got their new constitution the way they wanted, they pulled, they struggled, they bribed, they begged, they kidnapped, they killed, and they haunted us into its doing things their easy to corrupt way.
Anti-Federalist Papers, Centinel #1, 1787.10.5
"Our situation is represented to be so critically dreadful, that, however reprehensible and exceptionable [causing objection] the proposed plan of government may be [the 2nd US constitution], there is no alternative, between the adoption of it and absolute ruin. My fellow citizens, things are not at that crisis, it is the argument of tyrants." [In other words, the phamphlet and gossip based media of the day went into overdrive to push for the political agenda its masters. Here we imagine a version of what the media has recently done with Y2K, Brexit and climate change.]
Pauline Maier, Ratification, Introduction
"the Federalists also controlled the documents on which historians depend. They owned most of the newspapers. They sometimes paid those who took notes on the convention debates or subsidized the publication of their transcripts. In some places, above all Connecticut, Federalists forcibly blocked the circulation of literature critical of the Constitution. In Pennsylvania, as one little-known letter in the DHRC proves, they even tried to suppress evidence that anyone had anything negative to say about the Constitution, and so suggest that everyone was simply shouting 'huzzah'."
Anti-Federalist Papers, John DeWitt, 1787.11.5
"Knowing the danger of frequent applications to the people, they ask for the whole at once. And [they] are now by their conduct, teasing and absolutely haunting you into a compliance. If you choose all these things should take place, [then] by all means gratify them. Go, and establish this Government which is unanimously confessed imperfect, yet incapable of alterations."
Gustavus Meyers, History of Great American Fortunes, 1.5
"The Constitution of the United States was so drafted as to take as much direct power from the people as the landed and trading interests dared [take]."
Anti-Federalist papers 1787.06.28
[Speaking here is Gunning Bedford, one of the 39 men who stayed to the end and produced the 2nd US Constitution of 1787. Bedford was apparently on the side of common sense opposing Hamilton and Madison.] "what have the people already said? 'We find the confederation [of 13 states] defective — go and give additional powers to the confederation — give to it the imposts [the power to tax], regulation of trade, power to collect the taxes, and the means to discharge our foreign and domestic debts.' Can we not then, as their delegates, agree upon these points? As their ambassadors, can we not clearly grant those powers? Why then, when we are met [meeting] must entire, distinct, and new grounds be taken, and a government, of which the people had no idea, be instituted? And are we to be told, if we won't agree to it, it is the last moment of our deliberations? I say, it is indeed the last moment, if we do agree to this assumption of power. The states will never again be entrapped into a measure like this. … Let us then do what is [with]in our power –- amend and enlarge the confederation [of the 13 state legislatures, with over 2,000 law makers], but not alter the federal system [by which those 13 states cooperate]. The people expect this, and no more."
The US began as a 1:1,200 democracy
Under the 1st constitution of 1777 the United States (plural) had over 2,000 state lawmakers for 2.4 million free men. Then in 1787, 4-years after the Revolutionary War ended, a call was made for delegates to discuss ways to make the congress or union of 13 states work better. 74 Men were selected as delegates, but only 55 went to Philadelphia in May of 1787. Of these, only 39 delegates actually stayed until the 2nd US constitution was completed in September. Thus only 39 men "drafted" the paradigm for modern democracy. This was barely over half of the 74 men delegated to go. The other half either boycotted or walked out of what is today celebrated as the US constitutional convention.
Under this 2nd constitution, all of America's 2,000 or so state legislators were put under the power of their new federal government which consisted of 65 representatives, 26 senators, and a 1 four-year elected monarch with immense power over the rest of government. Needless to say, this was a huge narrowing of our nation's broad democracy. Thus it is not a real democracy we use today — It is the clever illusion of democracy, an oligarchic monarchy, just like with the Romans and Athenians.
James Madison Architect of the U.S. Constitution
The current US constitution was substantially written before-hand by James Madison. We don't know how much it was changed during the "constitutional convention".
Patrick Henry, 1788.06.05, Anti-Federalist Papers
"There is an ambiguity, Sir, a fatal ambiguity; an ambiguity which is very astonishing. In the clause under consideration, there is the strangest thing that I can conceive. I mean, when it says, that there shall not be more Representatives, that one for every 30,000. Now, Sir, how easy is it to evade this privilege [restriction]? 'The number shall not exceed one for every 30,000'. This may be satisfied by one Representative from each State. Let our numbers be[come] ever so great; this immense continent, may, by this artful expression, be reduced to have but 13 Representatives. I confess this construction is not natural; but the ambiguity of the expression lays a good ground for quarrel. Why was it not clearly and unequivocally expressed, that they [the American people] should be entitled, to have [a representation ratio of] one for every 30,000? This would have obviated all disputes; and was this difficult to be done? What is the inference?"
The US Constitution mentions a 1:30,000 representation ratio.
[Article I, Section 2 of the current 2.0 version of the US Constitution, the 1789 version states:] "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers… The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000 but each state shall have at least one representative…"
[Look at the last 9 words above:] "but each state shall have at least one representative". [How on earth did such an oligarchic clause get into the US Constitution? Why on earth did our great and wise "Founding Fathers" narrow US democracy from over 2,000 legislators to potentially as few as 13? Did Americans do this by themselves after rebelling against the English king? Or did some foreign interest help America to narrow its House of Representatives into an easy-to-manage oligarchy with potentially as few as 13 state representatives? Clearly someone was sabotaging the new prototype democracy, angling to make it as narrow and oligarchic as possible in future generations.]
America's democracy is close to oligarchy
Look at American-style democracy on the true continuum of democracy — that of the representation ratio. With respect to our Congress, America's narrow democracy is one of the more highly leveraged, least democratic, and easiest to corrupt variations of democracy. It is a form of democracy with roughly a one-in-a-million representation ratio. It is a democracy only one order of magnitude broader than oligarchy. Or maybe it still is a sort of oligarchy — a broad oligarchy, double-checked by a 100-man oligarchy, and then triple checked by a completely over-worked 4-year monarch and his appointee "secretaries".
Now of course the foregoing is with respect to legislative power. America's executive (implementation) branch of government exists as a periodic monarchy. Its entire invisible administration, whoever they really are, is appointed by one man, or actually his non-elected political party.
And let's not forget the Judiciary: This is a narrow oligarchy of 9 lifetime appointees. Here 5 of 9 appointees can veto the acts of our legislature for any plausible conflict they can dream up with our US constitution, a document that is not only breif to the point of vagueness, but it is also absurdly hard-to-change, and thus perennially out-of-date.
These 9 supreme court appointees can use any conflict with our uber-vague and uber-terse 8-page constitution to halt our democratic legislature. So yes, we sort-of have a narrow democracy, but it is "checked and balanced" by an elected monarch and a 9-man court of appointees.
Paragraph 5 from the 1st U.S constitution,
The Articles of Confederation (1777-1789)
"For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United [13] States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state to recall [all] its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. No state shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit [on his behalf] receives any salary, fee or emolument [profit from holding a public office] of any kind. Each state shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, and while they act as members of the committee of the states. In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote."
The United States were a 1-in-1,200 democracy under their 1st constitution of 1777-1789.
The word delegate is used 5-times in the paragraph above. These delegates were not autonomous lawmakers empowered to make their own decisions. They were messengers conveying 13 votes from 13 state legislatures with over 2,000 legislators. If the delegates didn't vote the way they were directed by their state legislature, they would be recalled and replaced, and perhaps there would be a recount of the 13 state votes.
2,000 US lawmakers
Given that the US began with a free population of 2.4-million, the nation began with a hard-to-corrupt 1:1,200 representation ratio under its first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Today, the US has an easy-to-corrupt 1-in-1.54- million representation ratio. How did that change happen? How is it that our prototype democracy now has a representation ratio almost a thousand times narrower than our real founding fathers instituted in 1777-1789?
Melancton Smith speech, 1788.06.25. New York ratifying convention of America's 2nd constitution of 1789, Anti-Federalist Papers
"An honorable gentleman from New York [arch Federalist Alexander Hamilton] observed yesterday, that the states would always maintain their importance and authority, on account of their superior influence over the people. To prove this influence, he mentioned the aggregate number of the state representatives throughout the continent. But I ask him, how long the people will retain their confidence, for two thousand representatives who shall meet once in a year to make laws for regulating the height of your fences and the repairing of your roads? Will they not by and by be saying — Here, we are paying a great number of men for doing nothing: We had better give up all the civil business of our state with its powers to Congress, who are sitting all the year round: We had better get rid of that useless burden. That matters will come to this at last, I have no more doubt that I have of my existence. The state governments, without object or authority, will soon dwindle into insignificance." [Read those words again: "two thousand representatives"]
The Federal Farmer 1787.10.08, Anti-Federalist Papers
"Instead of being 13 republics [independent democracies], under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government. …This consolidation of the [13 united] states has been the object[ive] of several men in this country for some time past."[These men were the Federalists lead by Alexander Hamilton.]
Tyranny's struggle works in small strategic steps
America's broad and problematic 1:1,200 representation ratio was eliminated by working in small steps. First they got us to institute a 2nd constitution that had a 1:30,000 limit on its representation ratio. This was 80 lawmakers in a nation of 2.4 million. It was probably as narrow as they could get away with, without risk of provoking a reaction.
Then they did something very confusing. They got us to institute this 1:30,000 limit as an upper limit on the number of senators — meaning that the US could have no more than 80 senators for 2.4 million free citizens. Instead the constitution should have used 1:30,000 as a lower limit on the number of senators — meaning that the land of the free could have no fewer than 80 senators for its 2.4 million free citizens.
Today, the US democracy still uses no more than a 1:30,000 representation ratio — It uses around a 1:580,000 representation ratio. So today, the US has 435 representatives — a number that is much lower than the 11,000 representatives we are allowed under the current US Constitution — about 25x fewer representatives.
Lilly Tomlin
"98% of the adults in this country are decent hardworking honest Americans. It's the other lousy 2% that get all the publicity. But then, we elected them." [Actually only 0.000176% of Americans are elected officials in the national government at any one time. Tomlin's remark overstates our representation by 11,363:1.]
The Anti-Federalist Papers, 21 June 1787
"One Gentleman alone (Colonel Hamilton) in his animadversions on [criticism of] the plan of New Jersey, boldly and decisively contended for an abolition of the State Governments. Mr. Wilson and the gentlemen from Virginia who also were adversaries of the plan of New Jersey held a different language. They wished to leave the States in possession of a considerable, though a subordinate jurisdiction."
Sates rights is a cover story
Think about all the junk we Americans learn about state's rights in high school. This is propaganda for how America's all critical representation ratio was narrowed from 1:1,200 to 1:580,000. You see, the ministry of Truth (concerned primarily with telling lies) gets us while we are young and our minds are pliant.
Thomas Paine, Common Sense p.38-39
"I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large and equal representation; and there is no political matter which more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a small number of representatives are equally dangerous. …Those who would fully understand of what great consequence a large and equal representation is to a state, should read Burgh's political disquisitions."
The Anti-Federalist Papers, 1787.06.16
"It is a lesson we ought not to disregard, that the smallest bodies [with the narrowest representation ratios] in Great Britain are notoriously the most corrupt. Every other source of influence must also be stronger in small than large bodies of men."
Amendment proposed by the Massachusetts ratifying convention
"That there shall be one representative to every 30,000 persons according to the Census mentioned in the Constitution until the whole number of the Representatives amounts to two hundred."
Proposed amendment to the current U.S. constitution, 1788.06.27, Anti-Federalist Papers
"…there shall be one representative for every 30,000 according to the enumeration or census mentioned in the Constitution, until the whole number of representatives amounts to two hundred: after which, that number shall be continued or increased, as Congress shall direct, upon the principles fixed in the Constitution, by apportioning the representatives of each state to some greater number of people, from time to time, as population increases."
Proposed amendment to the current U.S. constitution, 1787.08.06, Anti-Federalist papers, 4.4
"As the proportions of numbers in different States will alter from time to time; as some of the States may hereafter be divided; as others may be enlarged by addition of territory; as two or more States may be united; as new States will be erected within the limits of the United States, the Legislature shall, in each of these cases, regulate the number of representatives by the number of inhabitants, according to the provisions hereinafter made, at the rate of one for every 40,000."
11,000 Representatives anyone?
According to Article 1, Section 2 of the current US constitution, the US government can simply pass an ordinary bill to widen the roll in the House of Representatives by 25-fold. Thus we can have to around 11,000 representatives, and this requires no constitutional amendment. It is already permitted by the US constitution. Why has this never even been discussed? It would certainly make it harder for the forces of corruption to sway the vote of America's congress if there were 11,000 representatives elected every two years.
Perhaps the big problem is that then, we might wonder why we allow only 100 men in our secondary house to veto the 11,000 men in our primary house. We might also wonder why we allow one 4-year presidential monarch (along with his non-elected administration) to have a veto on the laws of the 11,000 congressmen that are the basis of our democratic government.
David Hume, Political Discourses, 1715
"These people were extremely fond of liberty; but seem not to have understood it very well."
Percy Shelley
"The unacknowledged legislator of the world"
T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Ch. 69
"We on the Arab front were very intimate with the enemy. Our Arab officers had been Turkish officers, and knew every leader on the other side personally."
Machiavelli, The Prince, Ch. 7, 1513AD
"He was able if not to make whom he liked Pope, at least to prevent the election of any whom he disliked… as I have said already, though he could not secure the election he desired, he could have prevented any other." [Who is talking here? Who would care about this sort of power?]
Herman Melville, Moby Dick, 1851, Ch. 41
"Ahab's quenchless feud [jihad] seemed mine. With greedy ears I learned the history of that murderous monster [America, the rebel base] against whom I and all the others had taken our oaths of violence and revenge"
Herman Melville, Moby Dick, 1851, Ch. 44
"Ahab, the scheming, unappeasably steadfast hunter of the white whale."
[In the above, Ahab symbolizes the Arabs, and the White Whale symbolizes the US, the rebels against the ancient imperial rule of the Mideast.]
In 1777-1789, the United States were a congress of 13 independent states
Today, we learn so little about the government of this period, that many people think that the United States was without a "real" constitution between 1777 and 1789.
25.6% of delegates didn't go to the "convention"
Then 21.6% of delegates then walked out of the "convention"
Technically, there was no US "Constitutional Convention" convened in 1787 to write a 2nd US constitution. 74 men were delegated to discuss specific problems facing the meta-democracy of the 13 independent states acting together in concert, or congress. 19 delegates did not go, and then 16 delegates walked out of what would later be called the US Constitutional Convention. Only 39 of 74 men (52.7%) stayed to the end, and participated in the discussion and writing of the 2nd US Constitution of 1787/1789.
Many great men did not attend. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, John Adams, John Jay, and George Mason, among others did not go. How come so many important men did not go to such an important event? Well, it seems that many were like Patrick Henry, who did not go because he "smelled a rat". Patrick Henry's words, not mine.
Most of the people who stayed were either foreign moles or delegates from the 3 under-populated southern states. These 3 southern states had less than 7% of the nation's free population. And they were about to suffer a big financial hit from a legislative tide against slavery in the land of the free. So these were people that would accept any bargain to save slavery.
There can be no doubt that these men led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison exceeded their authority in drafting an entirely new constitution, a 2nd constitution for the 13 independent states. This new constitution narrowed the old democracy of over 2,000 legislators into one of 65 Representatives, 26 Senators, and 1 four-year monarch.
Our current constitution was written to restrain our freedoms
1/ It narrowed the U.S. democracy from over 2,000 legislators into one of 65 Representatives, 26 Senators, and 1 four-year monarch.
2/ It allows for an oligarchy of 50 people in the House of Representatives, one for each state.
3/ Its authors tried to get it ratified without a national bill of rights.
4/ It permitted slavery in the land of the free.
5/ It counts slaves in the calculation of representation.
6/ We use a republic that is substantially is run by a 4-year elected monarch and his appointees. This monarch's vetos can only be overridden with a 2:1 vote in both legislatures.
Ben Franklin and George Washington
We read in the Federalist papers that Benjamin Franklin then age 81 is on record as saying practically nothing, and convention chair George Washington contributed not one idea until the last day of the convention when he made a vague speech of encouragement. Thus Benjamin Franklin and George Washington had practically no input in drafting the constitution.
A new constitution was needed
Basically, under its 1st constitution, the 13 United State legislatures had 2,000 lawmakers organized as a meta-democracy, (a democracy of 13 sub-democracies). Here, in the congress of 13 state legislatures, if 7 states voted one way, it was considered a majority.
However, due to the inherent problems of meta-democracy for decision making, (i.e. a majority in 7-of-13 states could be had with as little as 26.9% of the popular vote), the government of the 13 United States only worked well on the state level. On the inter-state level, it was simply too 'wobbly'. It was too easy to pass legislation and then to cancel it. In fact, in the years leading up to 1789, we hear that many laws were passed and then repealed right after they were passed. This in turn led to many of the inter-state laws being ignored for some time to see if they would actually be left to stand for enforcement. This then lead to everyone ignoring the government when they did not want to do what they were told to do — like in for example, paying national taxes.
The 2nd U.S. Constitution was created to help enslave, not liberate.
That the 2nd U.S. Constitution would become the prototype for all modern democracies. This was probably obvious to many at the time.
Democracy transformed to oligarchy
America's legislatures are 483x and 2,083x narrower today
Under the 1st US constitution, the confusingly named "Articles of Confederation", the US had a representation ratio of around 1:1,200. Today, the House-of-Representatives has a representation ratio of 1:580,000 and our Senate a representation ration of 1:2.5 million. So one of our legislatures is 483 times narrower and the other 2,083 times narrower today
Cassius Dio, Reign of Augustus, 53.17
"Through this process, the power of both the people and the Senate was entirely transferred into the hands of Augustus. And it was at this time that a monarchy, to use the correct term, was established. It would certainly be most truthful to describe it as a monarchy even if two or three men held supreme power at the same time. It is true that the Romans hated the actual word monarch so vehemently that they did not refer to their emperors either as dictators or kings or anything similar. But since the final decision in the government process is referred to them, it is impossible that they should be anything other than kings." [Where the people will not accept lifetime monarchy, they can be given temporary kings, called by another name. Then the enemies of freedom eternally struggle, or jihad to expand the powers of those kings.]
The truth has a ring to it
Anti-Federalist Papers, The minority report of the Pennsylvania delegates to the US Constitutional Convention, 1787.12.18
"It was [in 1783] that the want [lack] of an efficient federal government was first complained of. And that the powers vested in [the] Congress [of the 13 states] were found to be inadequate to the procuring of the benefits that should result from the union [of the 13 States]. The impost [a Congressional tax on states] was granted by most of the states, but many refused the [requests for] supplementary funds [extra money]. The annual [automatic] requisitions were set at nought [zero] by some of the states [these would vote each year how much to contribute to the cause of the states united.] while others complied with them by legislative acts, but were tardy in their payments, and Congress found themselves incapable of complying with their engagements [promises to pay], and supporting the federal government. [Thus the government of the united 13 states thus couldn't pay for its obligations]. It was found that our national character was sinking in the opinion of foreign nations. [The media also says this about the US today.] The Congress [of 13 states] could make treaties of commerce but not enforce the observance of them. We were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations, who had shackled our commerce, while we were unable to retaliate: And all now agreed that it would be advantageous to the union to enlarge the powers of Congress; that they should be enabled in the amplest manner to regulate commerce, and to lay and collect duties on the imports throughout the United States. With this view, a convention was first proposed by Virginia, and finally recommended by Congress for the different states to appoint deputies [mere deputies with limited powers]to meet in convention, 'for the purposes of revising and amending the present articles of confederation, so as to make them adequate to the exigencies [urgent needs] of the union'. This recommendation the legislatures of twelve states complied with so hastily as not to consult their constituents on the subject; and though the different legislatures had no authority from their constituents for the purpose, they probably apprehended the necessity would justify the measure; and none of them extended their ideas at that time further than "revising and amending the present articles of confederation." Pennsylvania by the act appointing deputies [and it] expressly confined their powers to this object[ive]; and though it is probable that some of the members of the assembly of this state had at that time in contemplation to annihilate the present confederation, as well as the constitution of Pennsylvania, yet the plan was not sufficiently matured to communicate it to the public… [important text of the speech seems to be missing here.]
The Continental convention met in the city of Philadelphia at the time appointed. It was composed of some men of excellent characters; [and] of others who were more remarkable for their ambi•tion [willingness to go either way] and cunning, than their patriotism; and some who had been opponents to the independence of the United States. The delegates from Pennsylvania were, six of them, uniform and decided opponents to the [1st] constitution of this commonwealth [of 13 independent states]. The convention sat upwards of four months. The doors were kept shut, and the members brought under the most solemn engagements of secrecy. Some of those who opposed their going so far beyond their powers, retired, hopeless, from the convention, others had the firmness to refuse signing the plan altogether; and many who did sign it, did it not as a system they wholly approved, but as the best that could be then obtained, and notwithstanding the time spent on this subject, it is agreed on all hands to be a work of haste and accommodation.
Whilst the gilded chains were forging [being forged] in [side] the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without [outside], were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce… [more text missing]
We entered on the examination of the proposed system of government, [the 2nd US Constitution] and found it to be such as we could not adopt, without, as we conceived, surrendering up your dearest rights. We offered our objections to the convention, and opposed those parts of the plan, which, in our opinion, would be injurious to you, in the best manner we were able; and closed our arguments by offering the following propositions to the convention… [most of which are in the US Bill of Rights]
During the discussion we met with many insults, and some personal abuse. We were not even treated with decency, during the sitting of the convention, by the persons in the gallery of the house. However, we flatter ourselves that in contending for the preservation of those invaluable rights, you have thought proper to commit to our charge, we acted with a spirit becoming free men. And being desirous that you might know the principles which actuated [caused] our conduct, and being prohibited from inserting our reasons of dissent on the minutes of the convention, we have subjoined [added them at the end] them for your consideration [they are missing today], as to you alone we are accountable. It remains with you whether you will think these inestimable privileges, which you have so ably contended for [during the revolutionary war], should be sacrificed at the shrine of despotism, or whether you mean to contend for them with the same spirit that has so often baffled the attempts of an aristocratic faction, to rivet the shackles of slavery on you and your unborn posterity." [This is also known as: "The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their constituents 1787.12.18"]
What American-style democracy really is
It is a "democracy" designed to maximize the power of the figurehead monarch president and his appointees, and minimize the power of the democratic legislature.
Anti-Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, The farmer refuted
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the while volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." [translation: There's no need to study history and read about the failures of those that have gone before you. In truth, these rights are not at all obvious, and they can easily be obscured by a poor democratic design, viz. the 2nd US constitution of 1789. Alexander Hamilton was, as many Americans know, the arch Federalist, the man who lead the charge to narrow America's prototype democracy.]
Abraham Lincoln, 1861.07.04
"Our popular government has often been called an experiment."
[US style democracy seems to be particularly broken these days. Maybe it is time we all give up on the current experiment in 4-year kings and narrow democracy. Maybe it is time to institute an incorruptible broad democracy.]
Anti-Federalist Papers, Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1787.10.08
"A general convention for mere commercial purposes was moved for. The authors of this measure saw that the people's attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal system. And that, had the idea of a total change been stated, probably no state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of destroying ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system, could not have been admitted. A convention, therefore, merely for vesting in congress powers to regulate trade was proposed.
This was pleasing to the commercial towns, and the landed people had little or no concern about it. [In] September, 1786, a few men from the middle states met at Annapolis, and hastily proposed a convention to be held in May, 1787, for the purpose, generally, of amending the confederation. This was done before the delegates of Massachusetts, and of the other states arrived. Still not a word was said about destroying the old constitution, and making a new one. The states were still unsuspecting, and not aware that they were passing the Rubicon, appointed members to the new convention, for the sole and express purpose of revising and amending the confederation — and, probably, not one man in 10,000 in the United States, till within these [past] 10 or 12 days, had an idea that the old ship was to be destroyed, and [a]… new ship presented… The states, I believe, universally supposed the convention would report alterations in the confederation, which would pass an examination in [the] congress [of the 13 independent state legislatures]. And after being agreed to there, would be confirmed by all the legislatures, or be rejected. Virginia made a very respectable appointment, and placed at the head of it the first man in America [George Washington, who chaired the constitutional convention]. In this appointment there was a mixture of political characters; but Pennsylvania appointed principally those men who are esteemed [regarded as] aristocratical. Here the favorite moment for changing the government was evidently discerned by a few men, who seized it with address [skill or dexterity]."
Anti-Federalist Papers, John Dawson's Fears for the future, 1788.06.24
"Sir, an opinion is gone abroad [circulating] (From whence [where] it originated, or by whom it is supported, I will not venture to say) that the opponents of the paper on your table, are enemies of the Union. It may not therefore be improper for me to declare that I am a warm friend to a firm, federal [federation of independent states], energetic government; that I consider a confederation of the States on republican principles, as a security to their mutual interest, and a disunion as injurious to the whole: But I shall lament exceedingly, when a confederation of independent States shall be converted into a consolidated Government; for when that event shall happen, I shall consider the history of American liberty as short as it has been brilliant, and we shall afford on more proof to the favorite maxim of tyrants, 'that mankind cannot govern themselves."
Anti-Federalist Papers, John DeWitt, 1787.11.5
"Knowing the danger of frequent applications to the people, they ask for the whole at once. And [they] are now by their conduct, teasing and absolutely haunting of you into a compliance. If you choose all these things should take place, by all means gratify them. Go, and establish this Government which is unanimously confessed imperfect, yet incapable of alterations."
Anti-Federalist Papers, The minority report of the Pennsylvania delegates to the US Constitutional Convention, 1787.12.18
"The legislature of a free country should be so formed as to have a competent knowledge of its constituents, and enjoy their confidence. To produce these essential requisites, the representation ought to be fair, equal, and sufficiently numerous, to possess the same interests, feelings, opinions, and views, which the people themselves would possess, were they all assembled; and so numerous as to prevent bribery and undue influence. And [al]so responsible to the people, by frequent and fair elections, [so] as to prevent their neglecting or sacrificing the views and interests of their constituents, to[over] their own [selfish] pursuits. We will now bring the legislature under this constitution to the test of the foregoing principles, which will demonstrate, that it is deficient in every essential quality of a just and safe representation. The house of representatives is to consist of [a mere] 65 members. That is one for about every 50,000 inhabitants, to be chosen every two years. 33 members will form a quorum for doing business; and 17 of these, being a majority, determine the sense of the house. The senate, the other constitutional branch of the legislature, consists of 26 members being two from each state, appointed by their legislatures every six years [with no right of recall if they don't vote the way the 2000 state senators wish]. 14 senators make a quorum; the majority of whom, 8, determines the sense [vote] of that body…
Thus it appears that the liberties, happiness, interests, and great concerns of the whole United States, may be dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom, and knowledge of 25 or 26 men. How inadequate and unsafe a representation! Inadequate because the sense and views of 3 or 4 millions of people diffused over so extensive a territory comprising such various climates, products, habits, interests, and opinions, cannot be collected in so small a body: And besides, it is not a fair and equal representation of the people even in proportion to its number, for the smallest state has as much weight in the senate as the largest and from the smallness of the number to be chosen for both branches of the legislature; and from the mode of election and appointment, which is under the control of Congress; and from the nature of the thing, men of the most elevated rank in life, will alone be chosen. The other orders of the society, such as farmers, traders, and mechanics, who all ought to have a competent number of their best informed men in the legislature, will be totally unrepresented.
The representation is unsafe, because in the exercise of such great powers and trusts, it is so exposed to corruption and undue influence, by the gift of the numerous places of honor and emoluments at the disposal of the [administration of the lone] executive; by the arts and address of the great and designing; and by direct bribery. The representation is moreover inadequate and unsafe, because of the longer terms for which it is appointed, and the mode of its appointment, by which Congress may not only control the choice of the people, but may so manage as to divest the people of this fundamental right, and become self- elected. The number of members in the house of representatives MAY be increased to one for every 30,000 inhabitants [100 men at the time]. But… we are persuaded that this is a circumstance that cannot be expected. On the contrary, the number of representatives will probably be continued at 65, although the population of the country may swell to treble what it now is…" [Actually, the US population swelled to over 100 times its original size and Congress is mow only 4.7 times larger than it was in 1789.]
Anti-Federalist Papers, The minority report of the Pennsylvania delegates to the US Constitutional Convention, 1787-12-18
"This large state [Pennsylvania] is to have but ten members in that Congress which is to have the liberty, property and dearest concerns of every individual in this vast country at absolute command and even these ten persons, who are to be our only guardians; who are to supersede the [entire] legislature of Pennsylvania, will not be of the choice of the people, nor amenable to them. From the mode of their election and appointment they will consist of the lordly and high- minded; of men who will have no congenial feelings with the people, but a perfect indifference for, and contempt of them…"
Anti-Federalist Papers, Melancton Smith, 1788.6.20
"He understood from the [new 2nd US] Constitution, that 65 members were to compose the House of Representatives for 3 years. That after that time, a census was to be taken, and the number… shall never exceed 1:30,000. If this was the case, the first Congress that met might reduce the number below what it now is; a power inconsistent with every principle of a free government, to leave it to the discretion of the rulers to determine the number of the representatives of the people. There was no kind of security except in the integrity of the men who were entrusted. And if you have no other security, it is idle [a waste of time] to contend [argue] about Constitutions. …[now] supposing Congress should declare that there should be one representative for every 30,000 … it would [still] be incompetent to the great purposes of representation…
[in spite of] all the experience we had from others [nations trying different types of government], it had not appeared that the experiment of representation had [yet] been fairly tried. …There was something like it in the ancient republics, in which, being of small extent [scale], the people could easily meet together, though instead of deliberating, they only considered of those things which were submitted to them by their magistrates [These legislatures voted yes or not on the agenda set by their lone figurehead magistrates. It was a government where the critical agenda setting primary house was a figurehead mono•arch and the comparatively weak secondary house was a somewhat broad democracy.] America was the only country, in which the first fair opportunity [to test the idea of a broad representation ratio] had been offered. When we were Colonies, our representation [ratio] was better [broader] than any that was then known. Since the revolution, we had advanced still nearer to perfection. He considered it as an object[ive], of all others [objectives] the most important …the representative should be chosen from small districts. This being admitted, he would ask, could 65 men, for 3,000,000, or 1 for 30,000, be chosen in this manner? Would they possess of the requisite information to make happy the great number of souls that were spread over this extensive country? — There was another objection to the clause: If great affairs of government were trusted to a few men, they would be more liable to corruption. Corruption, he knew, was unfashionable among us, but he supposed that Americans were like other men. And thought they had hitherto displayed great virtues, still they were men. And therefore such steps should be taken as to prevent the possibility of corruption [in later times]. We were now in that stage of society, in which we could deliberate with freedom. How long it might continue, God only knew! Twenty years hence, perhaps, these maxims might become unfashionable. We already hear, said he, in all parts of the country, gentlemen ridiculing that spirit of patriotism and love of liberty, which carried us through all our difficulties in times of danger. When patriotism was already nearly hooted out of society, ought we not to take some precautions against the progress of corruption."
Anti-Federalist Papers, Melancton Smith, 1788.06.25
"We have no reason to hold our state governments in contempt, or to suppose them incapable of acting wisely. I believe they have operated more beneficially that most people expected, who considered that those governments were erected in a time of war and confusion, when they were very liable to errors in their structure. It will be a matter of astonishment to all unprejudiced men hereafter, who shall reflect upon our situation, to observe to what a great degree good government has prevailed. It is true [that] some bad laws have been passed in most of the states; but they arose more from the difficulty of the times, than from any want of honesty or wisdom. Perhaps there never was a government, which in the course of ten years did not do something to be repented of."
Anti-Federalist Papers, Melancton Smith, New York ratifying convention, 1788.6.20
"In so small a number of representatives, there is great danger from corruption and combination. [vote selling/swapping and political parties]. A great politician has said that every man has his price: I hope this is not true in all its extent — But I ask the gentlemen to inform, what government there is, in which it has not been practiced? Notwithstanding all that has been said of the defects in the Constitution of the ancient Confederacies of the Grecian Republics, their destruction is to be imputed more to this cause than to any imperfection in their forms of government. This was the deadly poison that effected their dissolution.
This is an extensive country, increasing in population and growing in consequence. Very many lucrative offices will be in grant of [granted by] the government, which will be the object of avarice and ambition. How easy will it be to gain over a sufficient number, in the bestowment of these offices, to promote the views and purposes of those who grant them! Foreign corruption is also to be guarded against. A system of corruption is known to be the system of government in Europe. It is practiced without blushing. And we may lay it to our account [assume that] it will be attempted amongst us. The most effectual as well as natural security against this, is a strong [broad]… legislature frequently chosen… Does the[proposed] house of representatives answer this description? I confess, to me they hardly wear the complexion of a democratic branch — they appear the mere shadow of representation. The whole number in both houses amounts to 91 — of these 46 make a quorum; and 24 of these being secured, may carry any point. Can the liberties of three millions of people be securely trusted in the hands of [a mere] 24 men? Is it prudent to commit to so small a number the decision of the great questions which will come before them? Reason revolts at the idea.
The honorable gentleman from New York [Alexander Hamilton] has said that 65 members in the house of representatives are sufficient for the present situation in the country, and taking it for granted that they will increase as one for 30,000, in 25 years they will amount to 200. It is admitted by this observation that the number fixed in the Constitution, is not sufficient without [unless] it is augmented. [However] It is not declared [anywhere in the constitution] that an increase shall be made, but is left at the discretion of the [congressional] legislature, by the gentleman's own concession; therefore the Constitution is imperfect. We certainly ought to fix in the Constitution those things which are essential to liberty. [and] If anything falls under this description, it is the number of legislature [legislators]. To say, as this gentleman does, that our security is to depend upon the spirit of the people, who will be watchful of their liberties, and not suffer them to be infringed, is absurd. It would equally prove that we might adopt any form of government."
Anti-Federalist Papers, John DeWitt, 1787.10.22
"Their proceedings are now before us for our approbation. The eagerness with which they have been received by certain classes of our fellow citizens, naturally forces upon us this question: Are we to adopt this Government without an examination? Some there are, who, literally speaking, are for pressing it upon us at all events. The name of the man who but lisps a sentiment in objection to is, is to be handed to the printer, by the printer to the public, and by the public he is to be led to execution. They are themselves stabbing its reputation. For my part, I am a stranger to the necessity for all this haste! Is it not a subject of some small importance? Certainly it is. Are not your lives, your liberties and your properties intimately involved in it? Certainly they are. Is it a government for a moment, a day, or a year? By no means — but for ages — Altered it may possibly be, but it is easier to correct before it is adopted. Is it for a family, a state, or a small number of people? It is for a number no less respectable than 3 millions. Are the enemy at our gates, and have we not time to consider it? Certainly we have. Is it so simple in its form as to be comprehended instantly? [but] Every letter, if I may be allowed the expression, is an idea. [Every letter is an idea: that sounds just like bro•lingo.]. Does it consist of but few additions to our present confederation… Far otherwise. It is a complete system of government, and armed with ever power, that a people in any circumstances ought to bestow. It is a path newly struck out, and a new set of ideas are introduced that have neither occurred or been digested. A government for national purposes … it ought to undergo a candid and strict examination… Which are but yet in infancy; and we had better proceed slow that too fast. I is much easier to dispense powers, than recall them. … Some are heard to say, 'When we consider the men [Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison] who made it, we ought to take it for sterling, and without hesitation that they were the collected wisdom of the States, and had no object but the general good…
That the citizens of Philadelphia are running mad after it, can be no argument for us to do the like: Their situation is almost contrasted with ours; they suppose themselves a central State; they expect the perpetual residence of Congress, which of itself alone will ensure their aggrandizement. [the cover story at least]… We are told by some people, that upon the adopting[of] this New Government, we are to become everything in a moment: Our foreign and domestic debts will be as a feather; our ports will be crowded with the ships of all the world, soliciting our commerce and our produce: Our manufactures will increase and multiply." [This reminds us of the way climate change action groups operate today.]
Anti-Federalist Papers, John DeWitt, 1787.11.05
"Who are this House of Representatives? "A representative Assembly, says the celebrated Mr. Adams… Can this Assembly be said to contain the sense of the people? Do they resemble the people in any one single feature? … Have you a right to send more than one for every 30,000 of you? Can he be presumed [to know] your different, peculiar situations – your abilities to pay public taxes, when they ought to be abated, and when increased? Or is there any possibility of giving him information? All these questions must be answered in the negative. But how are these men to be chosen? Is there any other way than by dividing the senate into districts? May not you as well at once invest your annual Assemblies [the state senators only served for one year] with the power of choosing them — where is the essential difference? The nature of the thing will admit of none. Nay, you give them the power to prescribe [determine] the mode [of election]. … If you choose them yourselves, you must take them upon credit, and elect those persons you know only by common fame. Even this privilege is denied you annually, through fear that you might withhold the shadow of control over them. In this view of the System, let me sincerely ask you, where is the people in this House of Representatives? Where is the boasted popular part of this much admired System?
Are they not cousins-german [of the same family] in every sense to the senate? May they not with propriety [rightly] be termed an Assistant Aristocratical Branch, who will be infinitely more inclined to cooperate and compromise with each other, than to be the careful guardians of the rights of their constituents? Who is there among you would not start[be shocked] at being told, that instead of your present [State] House of Representatives, consisting of members chosen from every town [in your state], your future House were to consist of but ten in number, and these to be chosen by districts? ….
… In the one case, [under the 1st US constitution] the election would be annual, the persons elected would reside in the center of you, their interests would be yours, they would be subject to your immediate control [recall], and nobody to consult in their deliberations. But in the other, [the proposed 2nd US constitution], they are chosen for double the time [two years], during which, however, well disposed, they become strangers to the very people choosing them, they reside at a distance from you, you have no control over them, you cannot observe their conduct, and they have to consult and finally be guided by twelve other States, whose interests are, in all material points, directly opposed to yours.
Let me again ask you, What citizen is there in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that would deliberately consent laying aside the mode proposed, that the several senates of the several States, should be the popular Branch, and together, form one National House of Representatives? — And yet one moment's attention will evince [make plain] to you, that this 'blessed' proposed 'Representation of the People', this apparent 'faithful Mirror', this 'striking Likeness [of the people]', is to be 'still further refined, and [made]' more Aristocratical four times told'." [Single quotation marks added, along with the suggestion of sarcasm. It is just a hunch, but It certainly seems that someone's chorus or rumor mill was saying something like, 'I hear that the new constitution is a 'blessing and a faithful mirror of the people', that they 'started over from scratch four times, making the thing more democratical each time.']
Anti-Federalist Papers, Patrick Henry, 1788.06.05
[Here Patrick Henry talks about the 2nd US constitution of 1789.]
1/ "Is it necessary for your liberty, that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system?"
2/ "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a president and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country."
Anti-Federalist Papers, Centinel #1, 1787.10.05
"Our situation is represented to be so critically dreadful, that, however reprehensible and exceptionable the proposed plan of government [the 2nd 1787 US constitution] may be, there is no alternative, between the adoption of it and absolute ruin. My fellow citizens, things are not at that crisis, it is the argument of tyrants."
Anti-Federalist Papers, Patrick Henry, Virginia ratifying convention, 1788.06.07
"I have thought, and still think, that a full investigation of the actual situation of America, ought to precede any decision on this great and important question [the adoption of the 2nd US constitution of 1789]… If it be demonstrated that the adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, Sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow. But, sir, if this be a truth that its adoption may entail misery on the free people of this country, I then insist, that rejection ought to follow.
Gentlemen strongly urge its adoption will be a mighty benefit to us: But, Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials that assertions and declarations, do not satisfy me. I must be convinced, Sir. I shall retain my infidelity [lack of Latin fides=faith] on that subject, till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to my understanding.
The Honorable Gentleman [Governor Randolph] has said, that it is too late in the day for us to reject this new plan: That system which was once execrated [loathed, ex•sacred] by the Honorable member, must now be adopted, let its defects be ever so glaring. … It is too late in the day? Gentlemen [you] must excuse me, if the should think differently. I never can believe Sir, that it is too late to save all that is precious. If it [the 2nd US constitution] be proper, and independently of every external consideration, wisely constructed, let us receive it. [welcome it]. But, Sir, shall its adoption by eight States induce us to receive it, if it be replete with [full of] the most dangerous defects? They urge that subsequent amendments are safer than previous amendments, and they will answer the same ends. At present we have our liberties and privileges in our own hands. Let us not relinquish them. Let us not adopt this system till we see them [our liberties] secured. …
Let us recollect the awful magnitude of the subject of our deliberation. Let us consider the latent consequences of an erroneous decision — and let not our minds be led away by unfair misrepresentations and un-candid suggestions. …
The Honorable member advises us to adopt a measure which will destroy our Bill of Rights. For [but] after hearing his picture of nations, and his reasons for abandoning all the powers retained to [by] the States by [in] the confederation, I am more firmly persuaded of the impropriety of adopting this new plan in its present shape.
I had doubts of [about] the power of those who went to the Convention. But now we are possessed of it, let us examine it. When we trusted the great object[ive] of revising the Confederation to the greatest, the best, and most enlightened of our citizens, we thought their deliberations would have been solely confined to that revision. Instead of this, a new system, totally different in its nature and vesting the most extensive powers to Congress, is presented.
The Honorable member then observed that nations will expend millions for commercial advantages. That is, they will deprive you of every advantage if they can. Apply this another way, their cheaper way. Instead of laying out millions in making war upon you… [they] will… corrupt your senators. I know that if they are not above all price, they may sacrifice our[nation's] commercial interests … Sir, if our senators will not be corrupted, it will be because they will be good men; and not because the Constitution provides [any check] against corruption, for there is no real check [against corruption] secured in it [the 2nd US constitution], and the most abandoned and profligate acts may be committed by them with impunity.
Congress being the paramount supreme power, much not be disappointed. Thus Congress will have an unlimited, unbounded command over the soul of this Commonwealth. After satisfying their uncontrolled demands, what can be left for the States? Not a sufficiency even to defray the expense of their internal administration. They must therefore glide imperceptibly and gradually out of existence. This, Sir, must naturally terminate in a consolidation. If this will do for other people, it never will do for me.
If we are to have one Representative for every 30,000 souls, it must be by implication. The Constitution does not positively secure it. [They] Even say it is a natural implication, [but] why not give us a right to that proportion in express terms, in language that could not admit [permit] evasions or subterfuge? If they can use implication FOR us, then they can also use implication AGAINST us. We are GIVING power, they are GETTING power. Judge then, on which side the implication will be used. Once we put it in their option to assume constructive power, danger will follow. Trial by jury and liberty of the press, are also on this foundation of implication.
Mr. Henry then declared a Bill of Rights indispensably necessary. That a general positive provision should be inserted in the new system, securing to the States and the people, every right which was not conceded to the General Government, and that every implication should be done away[with]."
Patrick Henry, 1788.06.07
"The founders of your own Constitution made your Government changeable: But the power of changing it is gone from you! whither [to where] is it gone?" [Isn't the prototype US constitution far too hard to change? It's authors got it the way they wanted, and then made it super-hard to change.]
Gore Vidal
"Our form of democracy is bribery, on the highest scale."
Woodrow Wilson
"If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it."
Andrew Jackson
"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes."
Anti-Federalist Papers, John DeWitt, 1787.10.27
[This new Constitution] "was not a mere revision and amendment of our first Confederation, but a complete System for the future government of the United States, and I may now add in preference to, and in exclusion of, all others heretofore adopted. It is not TEMPORARY, but in its nature, PERPETUAL. It is not designated that you shall be annually called either to revise, correct, or renew it; but that your posterity shall grow up under, and be governed by it, as well as ourselves. It is not so capable of alterations as you would at the first reading suppose; and I venture to assert, it never can be, unless by force of arms. The fifth article in the proceedings, it is true, expressly provides for an alteration under certain conditions [quotes 2nd US constitution]… Notwithstanding which, such are the 'heterogeneous materials from which this System was formed', such is the difference of interest, different manners, and different local prejudices, in the different parts of the United States, that to obtain that majority of three-fourths to [make] any one single alteration, essentially affecting this or any other State, amounts to an absolute impossibility…
…The want [lack] of a [national] Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed System, is a solid objection to it, provided there is nothing exceptionable in the System itself. … Language is so easy of explanation, and so difficult is it by words to convey exact ideas, that the party to be governed cannot be too explicit. The line cannot be drawn with too much precision and accuracy. The necessity of this accuracy and this precision increases in proportion to the greatness of the sacrifice and the numbers who make it. That a Constitution for the United States does not require a Bill of Rights, when it is considered, that a Constitution for an individual State would, I cannot conceive."
Anti-Federalist Papers, John DeWitt, 1787.11.5
"You are told, that the rights of the people are very amply secured, and when the wheels of it are put into motion, it will wear a milder aspect than its present one. Whereas the very contrary of all this doctrine appears to be true. Upon an attentive examination you can pronounce it nothing less, than a government which if a few years, will degenerate to a complete Aristocracy, armed with powers unnecessary in any case to bestow, and which in its vortex swallows up every other Government upon the Continent. In short, my fellow-citizens, it can be said to be nothing less than a hasty stride to Universal Empire in this Western World, flattering, very flattering to young ambitious minds, but fatal to the liberties of the people. The cord is strained to the very utmost. There is every spice of the SIC. JUBEO possible in the composition. [is the underlined a palimpsest?] Your consent is requested, because it is essential to the introduction of it; [however] after having received confirmation, your complaints may increase the whistling of the wind, and they will be equally regarded."
James Madison to George Washington, Madison Papers, 9.383
"a consolidation of the whole into one simple [to manage] republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities whenever they can be subordinately useful."
James Madison
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations." [Is this a warning to freedom lovers or something for freedom haters to keep in mind?]
Anti-Federalist Papers, 1787.06.16
"Mr. Wilson: …He could not persuade himself that the State Governments and Sovereignties were so much the idols of the people, nor a National Government so obnoxious to them, as some supposed. Why should a National Government be unpopular? Has it less dignity? Will each Citizen enjoy under it less liberty or protection? Will a Citizen of Delaware be degraded by becoming a Citizen of the United States" [Note the hollow sound of this propaganda. Where are the facts? Where is the logic?]
Anti-Federalist Papers, Patrick Henry,
Virginia ratifying convention 1788.06.12
"It has been said by several Gentlemen that the freeness of elections would be promoted by throwing the country into large districts. I contend, Sir, that it will have a contrary effect. It will destroy that connection that ought to subsist [exist] between electors and the elected. If your elections are by [large voting] districts instead of counties, the people will not be [personally] acquainted with the candidates. They must therefore be directed in the election by those who know them. So that instead of a con•fidential connection between the electors and the elected, they will be absolutely unacquainted with each other. A common man must [therefore] ask a man of influence how he is to proceed, and for whom he must vote. The elected, therefore, will be careless of [not care about] the interest[s] of the[ir] electors. It will be a common [easy] job to extort [twist-out] the suffrages [vote] of the common people for the most influential characters. [It will thus be normal for the most influential characters to twist/sway the vote of the common man.] The same [men] may be repeatedly elected by these means. This, Sir, instead of promoting the freedom of elections, leads us to and Aristocracy. Consider the mode of elections in England. Behold the progress of an election in an English shire. A man of an enormous fortune will spend 30,000£ to 40,000£ to get himself elected. This is frequently the case. Will the Honorable Gentleman say, that a poor man, as enlightened as any man in the island, has an equal chance with a rich man to be elected? He will stand no chance though he may have the finest understanding of any man in the shire[county]. It will be so here [in America]. Where is the chance that a poor man can come forward with the rich? The Honorable Gentleman will find that instead of supporting Democratical principals, it goes absolutely to[wards]destroy[ing] them.
The State Governments, he says, will possess greater advantages than the General [Federal] Government, and will consequently prevail. His opinion and mine are diametrically opposite. Bring forth the Federal allurements [allure= the quality of being powerful and mysteriously attractive or fascinating], and compare them with the poor contemptible things that the State Legislatures can bring forth [will have the power to enact]."
Anti-Federalist Papers, James Madison replies to Patrick Henry, Virginia ratifying convention 1788.06.12
[Here James Madison says other things and completely ignores the legitimate claims of Patrick Henry. Here I am reminded of a saying in the legal profession: "If the facts support your case, argue the facts. If the facts don't support your case, argue something else." Also, here the "great" James Madison is arguing something else on behalf his anti-American agenda.] "Mr. Chairman. Pardon me for making a few remarks on what fell from the Honorable Gentleman last up [Patrick Henry]. I am sorry to follow the example of Gentlemen in deviating from the rule of the House. But as they have taken the utmost latitude in their objects, it is necessary that those who favor the Government should answer them. But I wish as soon as possible to take up the subject regularly. I will therefore take the liberty to answer some observations which have been irregularly made, though they might be more properly answered when we came to discuss those parts of the Constitution to which they respectively refer. I will, however, postpone answering some others till then. If there be that terror in direct taxation, that the States would comply with requisitions to guard against the Federal Legislature; and if, as Gentlemen say, this State will always have it in her power to make her collections speedily and fully, the people will be compelled to pay the same amount as quickly and punctually as if raised by the General [Federal] Government. It has been amply proved, that the General Government can lay taxes as conveniently to the people as the State Governments, by imitating the State systems of taxation…"
Anti-Federalist Papers, Melancton Smith, 1788.06.21
"A few years ago we fought for liberty. We framed a general government on free principles. We placed [put in place] the state legislatures, in whom the people have a full and fair representation, between Congress and the people. We were then, it is true, too cautious; and too much restricted the powers of the general government. But now it is proposed to go into the contrary, and a more dangerous extreme; to remove all barriers; to give the new [federal] government free access to our pockets, and ample command of our persons; and that without providing for a genuine and fair representation of the people." [See, the pendulum was pulled too far to one side so it could later swing it too far to the other side.]
Special ratifying conventions approved the US Constitution
It is worth repeating that the US constitution was not ratified by the Confederation Congress then in power. It was not ratified by the various state legislatures. It was not ratified by a vote of the people in the various states. In 8 of the 13 states, it was ratified by small bodies of appointees from the various state legislatures. Here is how America's over-centralized constitution, with its lone presidential figurehead monarch was passed so soon after America had gotten rid of the British figurehead monarchy. (search ratification controversy).
Decision in Philadelphia
"Feeling against the Constitution was, thus, genuine and widespread. It is probable that, at the outset, a majority of the people in many states were opposed to it."
Anti-Federalist Papers, Farmer Jonathan Smith's speech at the Massachusetts ratifying convention.
"Mr. President [chairman], I am a plain man and get my living by the plow…. I had been a member of the Convention to form our own state constitution, and had learnt something of the checks and balances of power, and I found them all there. I did not go to any lawyer to ask his opinion. [This makes it sound like people were asking "expert" lawyers to advise them about the new constitution.] We have no lawyers in our town, and we do well enough without. I formed by own opinion, and was pleased with this [2nd 1787 US] Constitution. … I never had any post, nor do I want one. But I don't think worse of the Constitution because lawyers and men of learning, and moneyed men are fond of it. I don't suspect that they want to get into Congress and abuse their power …Some gentlemen think that our liberty and property are not safe in the hands of moneyed men, and men of learning. I am not of that mind… Some gentlemen say, don't be in a hurry. Take time to consider, and don't take a leap in the dark. I say, take things in time, gather fruit when it is ripe. There is a time to sow and a time to reap. We sowed our seed when we sent men to the Federal Convention. Now is the harvest. Now is the time to reap the fruit of our labor. And if we don't do it now, I am afraid, we shall never have another opportunity."
Decision in Philadelphia
"When the 9th state ratified, all across the union there were enormous celebrations, parades, fireworks, bonfires, huge ship models 20 or 30 feet long towed through the streets, speeches, joy. There was a sense everywhere among Americans that they had done something grand and glorious, something that would endure and light a lamp for the rest of the world to follow."
Vladimir Lenin
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.
Mustering a new democracy
There should be a backup process for "We-The People" to self-organize and elect a new constitution and new representatives without the involvement of the current government. This is so democratic revolutions can be as easy and as safe as possible for nations that are oppressed. Here is a system for doing that.