Public Opinion vs. Federal Government – A Dissertation for the politically challenged

IF THEY SAY ITS PUBLIC OPINION, BEWARE.  PUBLIC OPINION IS SIMPLY WHAT EVERYBODY THINKS EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS. 

To say that public opinion and the federal government are enemies is absurd, but to say that they are bedfellows is equally absurd.  So where do they stand?  Our U S Constitution was devised precisely to stand against and frustrate the efforts of those that would have an ambition to rise up a factious regime and poison the mix of our government either by using public opinion as a tool for propaganda, or by cogency. 

Individual states are responsible for matters and concerns to its individual citizens.  In theory, States (the public) are central governments for their boundaries that include counties and cities.  Citizens of states inside the United States of America are free to move to whichever or whatever state is in their best interest.  This is why many companies and persons choose to move to another state that may have more favorable laws for their way of life.

Separation of powers is one of the quintessential and Christian influenced principles of the United States Federal form of government is generally accredited to Baron de Montesquieu, whose “The Spirit of the Laws” (1748) was highly regarded by the writers and framers of the U S Constitution, basically Montesquieu contended like () that absolute power corrupts absolutely and that those entrusted with power tend to abuse it, thus the concept of “checks and balances” was first conceived.

From Essay 9 Hamilton wrote:

“The utility of a Confederacy, as well to suppress faction and to guard the internal tranquillity of States, as to increase their external force and security, is in reality not a new idea.  It has been practiced upon in different countries and ages, and has received the sanction of the most approved writers on the subject of politics.  The opponents of the plan proposed have, with great assiduity, cited and circulated the observations of Montesquieu on the necessity of a contracted territory for a republican government.  But they seem not to have been apprised of the sentiments of that great man expressed in another part of his work, nor to have adverted to the consequences of the principle to which they subscribe with such ready acquiescence.

When Montesquieu recommends a small extent for republics, the standards he had in view were of dimensions far short of the limits of almost every one of these States.  Neither Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, nor Georgia can by any means be compared with the models from which he reasoned and to which the terms of his description apply.  If we therefore take his ideas on this point as the criterion of truth, we shall be driven to the alternative either of taking refuge at once in the arms of monarchy, or of splitting ourselves into an infinity of little, jealous, clashing, tumultuous commonwealths, the wretched nurseries of unceasing discord, and the miserable objects of universal pity or contempt.  Some of the writers who have come forward on the other side of the question seem to have been aware of the dilemma; and have even been bold enough to hint at the division of the larger States as a desirable thing.  Such an infatuated policy, such a desperate expedient, might, by the multiplication of petty offices, answer the views of men who possess not qualifications to extend their influence beyond the narrow circles of personal intrigue, but it could never promote the greatness or happiness of the people of America.”

From essay 10 Madison wrote:

“In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.  Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.”

The United States of America even with the addition of women voters, foreign voters, and people who are indebted up to their eyeballs (slaves to the banks and other lending institutions.) are just like the Grecians in their time.  It seems as though that Ten percent (10%) rule still applies to those that are actually voting in voter turnout.

The Democratic Party in America would have us believe that we live in a majority Democracy, when the reality is; Democrats loathe the fact that the federalist constitution prohibits (does not allow) their view all together.  Remember we are, “We the people”, but that the central and individual governments represent us “the people”.  That is why the framers, no not farmers, of the constitution introduced this
”mixed form of government” and introduced the electoral college into the formula to balance the votes for the Presidential Election, and the avoidance of a mob ruler.  Even Aristotle, predominate Greek philosopher 384-322 BC, knew the pitfalls of Democracy.  Aristotle’s philosophy was deeply rooted in the precept that Humans by nature are gregarious and love to socialize and be within their own kind, thus making an effort to impose a form of government or political association or environments to fulfill their own desires.  This is the beginning of mob rule in which the majority dictates to the whole of the people. 

Hitler – An example to be followed?  Maybe?

We see it in Hitler’s reign; Hitler invoked a social democracy, and rolled into power on the backs of the people.  The masses of people that bought into the Hitler Reich and through mob rule came to power is exactly the practice that the U S Constitution was established to deny.  In a Democracy the lie is that everybody has a chance to say politically through their votes, “change is necessary”, but in a true Democracy the difficulty in the democratic puzzle is getting enough people on your side in order to be the loudest and most aggressive voice heard in the voting booth.  In a Democracy everybody is supposed to be on an equal playing field.  Nevertheless, once again in the words of Aristotle, over 2000 years ago, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”

In a Democracy one represents their self, individuality, personality, and essence: more importantly their spirit.  The thought is that if they are equal in any respect, they are equal absolutely, but the only thing that people are seen equal in the United States of America, is in the eyes of the law.  Under a Democracy as in a Dictatorship laws can change with the wind and that is why the U S Constitution was designed to no mistake of those before it.  We live and breathe by a Federal Republic not a democracy in the sense that the liberal democrats have bastardized.  The Constitution is under attack and with it our liberties, not because of infallible men, but because of fallible man and his greed and pride to say that we are better than they that came before us. 

In writing this one must understand that the liberties of the USA are those that are granted by means of authority.

If we are so stupid as to not learn from history then we are certainly stupid enough to repeat it.

       

Thank Me:)