andrewmelcher.com Open in urlscan Pro
45.40.144.49  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://andrewmelcher.com/

<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://andrewmelcher.com/">
  <label>
    <span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
    <input type="search" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
  </label>
  <input type="submit" class="search-submit screen-reader-text" value="Search">
</form>

Text Content

Skip to content

A new much less corrupt form of democracy

Menu and widgets
 * A backup system for holding elections without government involvement
 * Tsunami film & other films on Google Drive
 * ROMAP: Rules of mustering and propagating a new democracy
 * Rule 192: Non-violent protest
 * Healthcare
 * What happens after global warming?
 * Seed dispersal and animal evolution
 * Early Reading
 * Impact Cosmology
 * Download full versions & flyer here
 * FLYER: Vote Them All Out At Once
 * Contact

Search for:


A BACKUP SYSTEM FOR HOLDING ELECTIONS WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT

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.

Post Views: 1,571,141
Proudly powered by WordPress