Washington Examiner - Homeland eyes special declaration to take charge of elections. Homeland Security is responsible for protecting critical infrastructure such as our road system. They are now asking whether or not the electoral process should be considered critical infrastructure and if they should be in charge of protecting it. This is interesting. Donald Trump questions if the election might be rigged, the United Nations sends observers and Homeland Security wants in.
I want my readers to really understand this, the .01% that work together to determine what happens do not like democracy. They never have. Remember that women and blacks were not allowed to vote in this country, that is over half the population was not allowed to vote. In fact, the founding fathers wanted to limit voting to land owners, the gentry. Nothing has changed.
U.S. News and World Report - A Candidate's Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election. Here is a quote from the article, "There's nothing in the Constitution which requires a popular election for the electors serving in the Electoral College," says John Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, meaning the body that officially elects presidents could convene without the general public voting. "It's up to each state legislature to decide how they want to choose the state's electors," Nagle says. "It may be a situation in which the fact that we have an Electoral College, rather than direct voting for presidential candidates, may prove to be helpful."
Now kiddies, I want you to understand what the media is saying. I have posted articles before where the mainstream media stated that the electoral college is not bound by the votes in their state; but, that is a lie, they are bound by their state laws and constitutions. Political parties do not have to follow rules, they are private entities that can make up their rules; but, the electoral college is a constitutional function and not a private organization.
The second article proposes that if one of the party candidates dies before the election that the election could be postponed until they found a new party candidate. This is nonsense, the constitution says we elect people not parties. By the way, this attempt at frustrating the vote of the people was not discussed when Robert Kennedy was killed after winning the California primary in 1968. If Trump is killed or Hillary is killed prior to the presidential election and congress tries to postpone the election, we will have a real constitutional crisis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is representational democracy truly democratic or is it just another name for oligarchy? This has been on my mind a lot lately. Why should the system be such that I must vote for someone to make decisions for me? Why do I need to elect my "betters" to rule me? Do you have any thoughts on anarcho-syndicalism? Any thoughts on Distributism as advocated by Pope Leo XIII?
Concerning abortion. All murder involves the use of my body. All actions in this reality involve my body. Even in heaven we will have a body. So following your reasoning it would be slavery to outlaw any form of murder because that would be a limitation on a persons body. Additionally, contemporary abortion involves more than the woman.It involves a child, and it also involves a doctor who profits from the murder. Do you think doctors have a right to murder babies and profit from it? Last time I checked being pregnant wasn't a disease. Also children have rights to their parents resources. That includes their bodies. This is why I am in favor of Dads paying child support,( and yes i am aware that this can be greatly abused, i have seen it first hand) because children have a right to their fathers resources. Do you think its slavery to makes laws that take money from one parent and give it to the other parent to take care of their mutual child?
Dear Anonymous 8/31/16,
Good questions and I will attempt to respond. Modern democracy is a concept that was developed by Locke, Hobbs and Rousseau. I highly recommend reading them. The basic concept is of the "social contract". This is the idea that when we live together, certainly in modern cities, there is a need to work together and in order to give that system validity it must allow the voice of the majority to be heard. While the founding fathers claimed to believe in those values, they created a system where the majority could not vote (no women, no blacks, no Indians, no Chinese... The country did not start as a democracy; but, as an oligarchy that allowed some at the lower level to vote. As for libertarianism or anarcho-syndicalism, they both are under the illusion that leaders will not emerge. The direct democracy aspect, while admirable, is not very effective in a highly technological society as the issues are much more complex than most people would truly bother to understand.
In regards to abortion, we disagree. The difference between slavery and restriction is that slavery tells you what you must do. Should a pregnant woman be told what she must eat or ingest? Where does the right to tell someone what they cannot ingest come from? Is that truly something we all must agree on in order for society to allow us to work together? Let me put this another way, there are no rights, those do not exist in theory or reality, there are merely limitations on government and those find their limits in violence.
I am limited in the comments section to how much I can type so I cannot go into greater detail in this section. As for what I believe, I have been writing about it for 7 years and have almost 2,000 posts on this blog. What is an appropriate form of government changes depending on the environment (social and environmental) that you live in. It starts with what does it take just to survive and that usually involves a high level of cooperation, consider the Eskimos, Polynesians, Indians and Aborigines. You had a choice, work together or die on your own. If you wish to have a society then you will only be successful if you work together and that always means giving up some choices, the question is over which choices. The social contract refers to the majorities choice over which choices they give up in order for society to function well. In the modern world those questions become increasingly difficult as their are other nations that want to tell you what you can do. You can outlaw suicide; but, you cannot enforce it.
Post a Comment