The rich own our democracy, new evidence suggests

The Greeks defined differing governments by their dominant factor. Aristotle writes: "Now a constitution (Politeia) is the ordering of a state (Poleos) in respect of its various magistracies, and especially the magistracy that is supreme over all matters. For the government is everywhere supreme over the state and the constitution is the government. 3 Our customary designation for a monarchy that aims at the common advantage is 'kingship'; for a government of more than one yet only a few 'aristocracy', ...while when the multitude govern the state with a view to the common advantage, it is called by the name common to all the forms of constitution, 'constitutional government'. 4 Where a government has only a king, the dominant factor, it is called a monarchy. Where a government has only a few nobles ruling, the dominant factor, it is called an aristocracy." Where the people are the dominant factor it is called a democracy.

The Greek word for State is "Poleos". It denotes "society" in general. Aristotle writes "A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state". 5 This Greek word, "Politeia" is then named for every government that includes numerous classes of people as citizens and a written law, a constitution, that defines and delegates rights and responsibilities of those classes. A republic is one that does not have a dominant factor".

Hence, the phrase "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. A democracy is when the people are dominant and a republic is mixed government wherein there is no dominant element. Therefore to say a "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. The confusion lies in that the word "republic" is synonymous with "constitution". For that reason, it is better to say "constitutional democracy" other than "democratic republic".


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/186640-democracy-and-republic-w-172-a-4.html

federalist 48--An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.


Definition of ELECTIVE
1a : chosen or filled by popular election <an elective official>
b : of or relating to election
c : based on the right or principle of election


Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power.


the founders state they did not fight a war, to create a government,of an elective despotism......................................a government of the people holding ALL absolute power

As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

OUR AMERICAN FOUNDERS SPEAKING OF OUR ......MIXED CONSTITUTION.

James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.

Polybius father of mixed government....who is also referenced by Madison in federalist 63

-------------

In Polybius’ view, the Roman system was superior to any of these simple constitutions because it blended the monarchical element (represented by the annually-elected consuls), the aristocratic element (represented by the Senate), and the democratic element (represented by the popular assemblies), into a harmonious system of governmental checks and balances (cf. 6.3.7-8). It is this aspect of Polybius’ political theory, his conception of the so-called “mixed constitution,” that has made him such an important figure in the tradition of western political thought. In the United States, as a reading of the Federalist Papers indicates, the evolution of the political theory of the “Founding Fathers” was indebted to Polybius.

In 1787 John Adams,arguing against proponents of single-assembly governments, underscored the point when he wrote in his A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,Letter XXX, “I wish to assemble together the opinions and reasonings of philosophers, politicians and historians, who have taken the most extensive views of men and societies, whose characters are deservedly revered, and whose writings were in the contemplation of those who framed the American constitutions. It will not be contested that all these characters are united in Polybius.”Indeed, Arnaldo Momigliano suggested that due to his deep influence on early American political thinkers, Polybius should be considered as an honorary founder of the Constitution of the United States of America.

TheDemSocialist said:

I believe right here: Contributions by persons other than multicandidate political committees (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)).

Click to expand...

turtle was asking where did the fedeal government get the power per the constitution to create the federal law you are stating.

TheDemSocialist said:

Read more @: The rich own our democracy, new evidence suggests

The rise of big money in politics has only brought less of a voice and representation for the middle and lower classes in congress. The rise in big money has also brought and fueled more and more hyper partisanship. Our politicians are literally bought and sold by the oligarchs.

Click to expand...

Lets say for the sake of argument that is true. So what? What voices are being drowned out and what is it they have to say? So long as the state lacks the power to violate the rights of the people, it really shouldn't matter all that much who runs the government.

TheDemSocialist said:

Read more @: The rich own our democracy, new evidence suggests

The rise of big money in politics has only brought less of a voice and representation for the middle and lower classes in congress. The rise in big money has also brought and fueled more and more hyper partisanship. Our politicians are literally bought and sold by the oligarchs.

Click to expand...

So...what is your socialist solution to this problem?

TurtleDude said:

what part of Sec 8 properly authorizes that law?

Click to expand...

ernst barkmann said:

turtle was asking where did the fedeal government get the power per the constitution to create the federal law you are stating.

Click to expand...

Right here: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

But its also in section 4: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

TheDemSocialist said:

Right here: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

But its also in section 4: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

Click to expand...

I don't see anything that remotely authorizes congress to tell private citizens how they spend their money

TheDemSocialist said:

Right here: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

But its also in section 4: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

Click to expand...

sorry thats wrong..

clause 17 states the seat of the government will be d.c. and only the federal government has authority there....and if the federal government wants to builds buildings/shipyards for the federal government it must purchase the property by the approval of the state legislature of that state.

clause 18 states that congress shall make all laws necessary and proper for the FOREGOING POWERS of article 1 section 8.....there is nothing about elections in the foregoing powers of article 1 section 8

section 4 ....BINGO...you have finally found it......this states the federal government only has authority in federal elections though dealing with state governments....no power in "non" federal elections, and no power dealing with the people.




section 4: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

"The rich own our democracy, new evidence suggests"

As long as I've been alive, the political establishment has owned our democracy and have tended to treat the rich rather badly. It is a curious belief that the rich run things in government. They try to but the political establishment has all the power. I didn't read the "evidence" because the title itself is complete nonsense.

The counterbalance to the money in politics is that we have a party that bases most of its existence on having the Government help the poor.

fmw said:

"The rich own our democracy, new evidence suggests"

As long as I've been alive, the political establishment has owned our democracy and have tended to treat the rich rather badly. It is a curious belief that the rich run things in government. They try to but the political establishment has all the power. I didn't read the "evidence" because the title itself is complete nonsense.

Click to expand...

democratic forms of government are very factious, and run by special interest...is it no wonder we have our government bought and paid by that special interst, when people do not underastand that it is democracy that causes this problem.

KLATTU said:

The counterbalance to the money in politics is that we have a party that bases most of its existence on having the Government help the poor.

Click to expand...

the counterbalance is to repeal the 17th amendment, which removed a major check and balance of the constitution.

the founders created our government to have divided power a repbulican form of government, not a democracy of concentrated power, a democratic form of government.

artile 4 section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.