The Rhinos have chosen their candidate Mitt Romney. The pundits have laid out what the Electoral College map looks like and it shows that Obama will be elected in a landslide.
How can this be? Many exclaim. It’s easy. The election for President that takes place the first Tuesday in November is not a national election but it is fifty separate elections. Our founding fathers set it up this way so that larger population centers would not dictate who our President would be.
Our founding fathers feared the direct election of President by the people because a tyrant could manipulate the people into voting for that person and thus come to power and the result would be tyranny by the majority over the minority or the smaller populated states.
Many ideas were discussed as to how to elect a president at the first constitutional convention in held Philadelphia. The first idea tossed out was to have congress elect the President. This idea was thrown out. The second idea was have the state legislatures elect the President. This idea was dismissed because our founding fathers feared the President would be beholden to the state legislatures who elected him. The third idea was a direct election of the President by the people. This idea was rejected.
Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist Paper 63. This paper directly refers to the Electoral College. Our founding fathers feared that those who ran for office could dupe the American people into voting for them. These men wanted to insure that the most qualified person was elected president. The Electoral College acted as check to so that the American people couldn’t be fooled.
Here are excerpts from Federalist Paper 63 written by Alexander Hamilton.
“An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: the one is, that, independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations; and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?
Responsibility, in order to be reasonable, must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party, and in order to be effectual, must relate to operations of that power, of which a ready and proper judgment can be formed by the constituents. The objects of government may be divided into two general classes: the one depending on measures which have singly an immediate and sensible operation; the other depending on a succession of well-chosen and well-connected measures, which have a gradual and perhaps unobserved operation. The importance of the latter description to the collective and permanent welfare of every country, needs no explanation. And yet it is evident that an assembly elected for so short a term as to be unable to provide more than one or two links in a chain of measures, on which the general welfare may essentially depend, ought not to be answerable for the final result, any more than a steward or tenant, engaged for one year, could be justly made to answer for places or improvements which could not be accomplished in less than half a dozen years. Nor is it possible for the people to estimate the SHARE of influence which their annual assemblies may respectively have on events resulting from the mixed transactions of several years. It is sufficiently difficult to preserve a personal responsibility in the members of a NUMEROUS body, for such acts of the body as have an immediate, detached, and palpable operation on its constituents.
It adds no small weight to all these considerations, to recollect that history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a senate. Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are, in fact, the only states to whom that character can be applied. In each of the two first there was a senate for life. The constitution of the senate in the last is less known. Circumstantial evidence makes it probable that it was not different in this particular from the two others. It is at least certain, that it had some quality or other which rendered it an anchor against popular fluctuations; and that a smaller council, drawn out of the senate, was appointed not only for life, but filled up vacancies itself. These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other. But after allowing due weight to this consideration, it may still be maintained, that there are many points of similitude which render these examples not unworthy of our attention. Many of the defects, as we have seen, which can only be supplied by a senatorial institution, are common to a numerous assembly frequently elected by the people, and to the people themselves. There are others peculiar to the former, which require the control of such an institution. The people can never willfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act.”
Our founding fathers gave us many warnings of what would happen if gave our sovereignty to a centralized federal government. The state would run our lives from womb to tomb.
This is happening now.
We are have not heeded the warning issued by Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and the rest and now we are on the verge of running off the cliff and in the process of destroying our country forever. Once individual freedom, private property rights, and freedom of choice is given up they will never be returned.
They will be lost forever.
Mitt Romney and his buds in the Republican Party do not understand the grave nature of what is happening now in this country.
They think it is business as usual. We have sown the seeds of our destruction. This can be traced to one sole act in history. It happened in 1962 when the Warren Court officially kicked the God of the Bible outta here.
The seeds were actually planted at the turn of the 19th century by Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson wrote The Author and Singers of the Declaration September 1907.
Here are some key excerpts from his paper.
“It is common to think of the Declaration of Independence as a highly speculative document; but no one can think it so who has read it. It is a strong, rhetorical statement of grievances against the English government. It does indeed open with the assertion that all men are equal and that they have certain inalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It asserts that governments were instituted to secure these rights, and can derive their just powers only from the consent of the governed; and it solemnly declares that “whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations in such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” But this would not afford a general theory of government to formulate policies upon. No doubt we are meant to have liberty, but each generation must form its own conception of what liberty is. No doubt we shall always wish to be given leave to pursue happiness as we will, but we are not yet sure where or by what method we shall find it. That we are free to adjust government to these ends we know. But Mr. Jefferson and his colleagues in the Continental Congress prescribed the law of adjustment for no generation but their own. They left us to say whether we thought the government they had set up was founded on “such principles,” its powers organized in “such forms” as seemed to us most likely to effect our safety and happiness. They did not attempt to dictate the aims and objects of any generation but their own. Can we return to our old standards in this strange and altered day, when all the face of circumstances seems changed and nothing remains as it was in the time when the government was hopefully set up? Undoubtedly we can. Not everything is changed: the biggest item of all remains unaltered — human nature itself; and it is nothing to daunt a free people — free to think and free to act, that the circumstances in which that old, unalterable nature now expresses itself are so complex and singular. The difficulty of the task is part of its desirability: it is a new enterprise upon which to stretch our powers and make proof of our sanity and strength. It is the task of making a new translation of our morals into the terms of our modern life, where individuality seems for the time being lost in complex organizations, and then making a new translation of our laws to match our new translation of morals. It is the task of finding the individual in the maize of modern social, commercial and industrial conditions; finding him with the probe of morals and with the probe of law. One really responsible man in jail, one real originator of the schemes and transactions which are contrary to public interest legally lodged in the penitentiary would be worth more than a thousand corporations mulcted in fines, if reform is to be genuine and permanent.
This was the first time in our history that men began to openly question the ideas laid forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Men like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt believed that a strong centralized government was key to insure the well being and safety of the people yet in fact the opposite was true. This idea set the stage and put in motion to gave the few complete control over us all.
These men believed that all freedom came from the government not God. That if the government could put in place programs that would ensure a safety net these few men would ensure they would stay in power forever.
Does this sound familiar?