[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

[C. G. Estabrook]

Sadly the Declaration has no -- zero -- standing in US law.  And of course it is
a deeply conflicted document -- e.g., in its treatment of indigenes. Its
partially assimilated Enlightenment principles can be a guide towards a just
polity, but it is in no sense an organic law.

The 1787 Constitution, on the other hand, is a purposely retrograde document,
designed to establish mechanisms to put down the drive to democracy (e.g.,
Shays' Rebellion), especially economic democracy.  (And the drafting of the
document was treasonous, because the authors had sworn allegiance to the
Articles of Confederation.)  The leading author of the Constitution, James
Madison -- whose diary is the principal source for the secret deliberations --
understood that well: he wrote that the goal was “to protect the minority of the
opulent from the majority.” --CGE


E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> The Declaration of Independence is the Charter document for these United 
> States.  If you invalidate that the whole thing falls apart, because it is 
> the foundation. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the By-laws.
> 
> Your "America" does not appear to be the same as mine.
> 
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> 
>> Wayne,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please read your history and other documents like the Federalist Papers. 
>> The debate that went on at the Constitutional Convention was not merely 
>> about how Senators were to be apportioned; it had to do a compromise in 
>> which Senators and the Senate would represent the states as sovereign 
>> entities in a federal form of government while the House of Representatives
>>  and the Representatives would represent the citizenry (i.e., the people
>> who were citizens and eligible to vote under the Constitution which was not
>>  everyone but mainly the landed white male gentry and propertied white 
>> middle class males).  As part of the compromise, to avoid disparities in 
>> geographic and population sizes between the individual states, it was 
>> decided that each state would have two Senators to represent the state.  It
>>  was only much later with the expansion of the franchise and suffrage and 
>> move away from political party conventions as the determiners of who would 
>> run as a candidate for Senator that the Senators began to represent the 
>> people of a state; but even then they legally had as their constituent 
>> district the whole state at large and not specific districts within a 
>> state.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am afraid that what  see as their duty (e.g., “…their duty to be of the 
>> people by the people for the people”) is at best a misplaced slogan. First,
>> it comes from the Declaration of Independence, which does not address the
>> architecture of the form of government to be used, and not the 
>> Constitution, which does address the architectural form of government and 
>> its operation.  Secondly, nowhere in the constitution - or for that matter 
>> the Declaration of Independence – does it specify or state that a Senator’s
>>  duty is to be of the people by the people or for the people.  This was a 
>> function of government in general according to the Declaration of 
>> Independence.  Thirdly, it is an open question if the founding fathers were
>>  using “people” in a figurative or a literal sense, what they actually
>> meant by “ the people,” and who they saw as being “the people.”  It is also
>>  questionable if the founding fathers meant by this phrasing virtual 
>> representation (someone who was selected by whatever means to act in what 
>> they viewed as the best interest of the community at large)or actual 
>> representation (someone who was selected by whatever means to carry out the
>>  will of the voting majority in accordance with some polling survey).  The 
>> mere fact that they warned of “tyranny of the majority” and  instituted all
>>  kind of checks and balances to protect against tyranny of the majority 
>> (i.e., “mobocracy” or mob rule) suggests that they viewed representation as
>>  being more of a virtual sort than an actual  “bean counting” sort.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It appears that you and many others have given a over-simplified and 
>> popularized interpretation to the notions of “the People” and 
>> “representation.”
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 
>> 07, 2009 5:24 PM *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON *Cc:* jencart13 at yahoo.com; 'peace 
>> discuss'; 'C. G. Estabrook' *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris 
>> circus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Laurie, please note that the senators also represent the people.  It is 
>> only the apportionment of them that is different from Representatives. The 
>> method of allocation of the numbers of senators or representatives doesnt 
>> change the charge of their duty to be of the people by the people for the 
>> people.
>> 
>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> 
>> Get real!  The system never paid any attention to The People; it paid 
>> attention to an elite segment of some of the people.  Who are these unnamed
>>  “They”?  If the masses allow themselves to be persuaded and sold a bill of
>>  goods which they believe and then act on by casting their votes for
>> someone or some policy position no matter who or what it is, who the hell
>> are you to say that this is not representative democracy, is not how the
>> system of representative democracy works or should work, and not a
>> representation of the people.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You happen to be wrong.  U.S. Senators are suppose to be representatives of
>>  the individual states and not the people, which is why each state gets two
>>  senators no matter what their geographic or population sizes.  It is the 
>> House of Representatives that is supposed to represent the people, which is
>>  why Representatives are apportioned according to population and not 
>> geography.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net 
>> <mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net> 
>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *E. Wayne 
>> Johnson *Sent:* Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:28 PM *To:* 
>> jencart13 at yahoo.com <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com> *Cc:* peace discuss; C. G.
>>  Estabrook *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The system is broken and it doesn't pay any attention to the people.
>> 
>> They gave you 2 worthless choices
>> 
>> - McCain  (Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran) - O-bomb-a (Yes We Can - Bomb
>>  Iran.)
>> 
>> They don't care which of those 2 you elect, because both of them are almost
>>  exactly same thing, and somehow they get the masses to believe that some 
>> how one or the other is significantly different.
>> 
>> And regardless of how IL residents (and others) feel about the situation,
>> Burris needs to get his paperwork sorted and then he needs to be seated.
>> 
>> The Senator is supposed to be a representative of the people and 
>> Blagojevich is a out-of-control Nero, a Joker mocking the hapless people of
>>  Illinois.
>> 
>> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> 
>> The "problem" is that we have this Innocent-until-proven-guilty thing that 
>> (supposedly) applies to everyone -- our enemies as well as our friends. 
>> Blago hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and may never be -- other than
>>  bragging and swagger (which seem to be  required for politicians), unless 
>> somebody can prove he actually made/accepted a specific offer. And 
>> regardless of how IL residents (and others) feel about the  situation, 
>> Burris needs to get his paperwork sorted and then he needs to be seated. 
>> (And at some point, Blago needs to resign To Spend More Time With His 
>> Family.)
>> 
>> --Jenifer