• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

Keep Electoral College or have direct elections?

  • The Electoral College works, keep it.

    Votes: 41 45.1%
  • The presidency should be determined by direct national vote.

    Votes: 39 42.9%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 11 12.1%

  • Total voters
    91

Surtr

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
7,017
Reaction score
2,980
Location
The greatest planet in the world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have no idea what you are talking about. The two definitions are in caps to distinguish them from the other part of the post. I thought that would help you when you explained both of them together and told me the important differences between the two.

I know what you said, I'm not an idiot, as you seem to think. All caps is an indication of raising ones voice when communicating in text format. This is common knowledge to the majority of people who communicate through an all text format.

The difference is federation. The American republic is a federal union, bound not only by the Constitution, but also through federal law. Through federal law, many policies and procedures do not require a vote, only supervision and mandate through the heads of federal bureaus who do not represent the people at all. Our republic is also not representative of the people, but of the interests of the districts. You don't have a voice, no private citizen does, and never truly has.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I know what you said, I'm not an idiot, as you seem to think. All caps is an indication of raising ones voice when communicating in text format. This is common knowledge to the majority of people who communicate through an all text format.

The difference is federation. The American republic is a federal union, bound not only by the Constitution, but also through federal law. Through federal law, many policies and procedures do not require a vote, only supervision and mandate through the heads of federal bureaus who do not represent the people at all. Our republic is also not representative of the people, but of the interests of the districts. You don't have a voice, no private citizen does, and never truly has.

I use caps as a way to distinguish important words or phrases. I know of no rule that says otherwise. I really am not one who is big on doing it "the right way" when common sense indicates there are many ways.

I really see no difference in our two labels in substance or in practice. Look at your final statement about no citizen having a voice. That is patently false. We have a voice in our ballot selection for all kinds of offices both on a local level, a state level and the federal level. That is a "voice" that people died to have and people in other nations would love to have.

Beyond that obvious example, many of our states have variations of direct citizen involvement such as initiative, referendum and recall. All three are examples of the democratization of the nation and a departure from 18th century representative ideals.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What most people know is the date on the wall calendar. That would be 2012 and not 1787.

What most people know is that what fit in 1787 for that nation that no longer exists politically, economically or socially does NOT fit today.

what you don't know is the union is not being run according too the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

sure its not 1787, and things have to change according too the times, but it must change according to how the Constitution saids it must be changed.

it is not supposed to be changed because a politician or bureaucrat wants its changed because they don't like something.

people are complaining all the time, because the government is corrupt, and some elite are running things, and that is because our union is not being run by that supreme law.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
what you don't know is the union is not being run according too the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

sure its not 1787, and things have to change according too the times, but it must change according to how the Constitution saids it must be changed.

it is not supposed to be changed because a politician or bureaucrat wants its changed because they don't like something.

people are complaining all the time, because the government is corrupt, and some elite are running things, and that is because our union is not being run by that supreme law.

We have a United States Supreme Court in Washington. They decide issues as to what is or is not Constitutional. Do they know what you claim is going on?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,467
Reaction score
14,611
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There are pros and cons. The pro being state representation and larger states not pushing their biased agendas upon the nation through a direct democracy.

My biggest con is that only swing states really matter and most candidates will pander to local issues to get the votes in swing states.
 

Federalist

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
2,713
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So you should no difficulty in any way shape or from to tell the world what
1- my political philosophy is

Well, part of it is that you believe that it is acceptable to undermine or encroach upon the life and property of others. That much is certain, and that is what I was talking about.
2- my political ends are
3- my political objectives are
One of your political ends or objectives is to undermine or encroach upon the property of others, as evidenced by your support of laws preventing possession of particular sorts of firearms.

Since you made them the centerpiece of you post, lets see you expound on these with some evidence.

After you satisfactorily accomplish that task, perhaps then we can deal with the Constitution that you seem to now want to talk about.

I'm happy to talk about the constitution. However, in this conversation I was talking about how you and I differ in that I refuse to undermine or encroach upon the life and property of others while you apparently are willing to do so in order to accomplish your political ends.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We have a United States Supreme Court in Washington. They decide issues as to what is or is not Constitutional. Do they know what you claim is going on?

the USSC does not over rule the Constitution, no one or institution can challenge the constitutionally of the constitution.

the constitution tells us that how changes to law must be made, and they are not being made constitutionally.

example: education and housing are not listed anywhere in the constitution, ...so how is the federal government involved?....... unconstitutionally.

i have read what Madison put forth, in the constitution and the federalist papers and our union is NOT being run according to that supreme law he created.

then people want too complain, because the government is corrupt and a few people are running it.............."well no wonder when the law is not being followed"
 
Last edited:

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, part of it is that you believe that it is acceptable to undermine or encroach upon the life and property of others. That much is certain, and that is what I was talking about.

One of your political ends or objectives is to undermine or encroach upon the property of others, as evidenced by your support of laws preventing possession of particular sorts of firearms.

Baloney times two.

Your example is NOT a political philosophy. It is simply the same unsupported and unsubstantiated character assassination allegation that you have repeatedly used against me. It is NOT a political philosophy.

You claim that I have a political philosophy. So produce it.

I have never advocated any of the goals or objectives which you claim and you have produced no evidence to support such a charge. Again, all you are doing is making unsubstantiated charges and engaging in character assassination simply because there may be a mild difference in how we see the margins or edges.

I challenge you yet again - produce clear evidence of what my goals and objectives are and flush this yesterdays digested baloney where it belongs.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the USSC does not over rule the Constitution, no one or institution can challenge the constitutionally of the constitution.

the constitution tells us that how changes to law must be made, and they are not being made constitutionally.

example: education and housing are not listed anywhere in the constitution, ...so how is the federal government involved?....... unconstitutionally.

i have read what Madison put forth, in the constitution and the federalist papers and our union is NOT being run according to that supreme law he created.

then people want too complain, because the government is corrupt and a few people are running it.............."well no wonder when the law is not being followed"

There is a story about the proud mother who attends the town parade to see her son Johnny in the marching band. She took a prominent spot and she was surrounded by her fellow townspeople. As the hundred member marching band came by a few people audibly gasped when it became obvious that young Johnny was leading with the wrong foot compared to every other member of the band. A few looked embarrassed and cast negative looks at the mother. The lady did not flinch but proudly puffed out her ample bosom and said loudly "everybody is out of step but my Johnny."

Your post and your opinion is no different.

For nearly eighty years now we have heard much the same over and over and over and over again despite the changing of the composition of the Court from decade to decade to decade. Somehow someway, folks who share your views are the only ones in the nation who really are clued into what is going and and whats more they all know the way its really suppose to be. And we are to believe that the Supreme Court making all these rulings decade after decade to enable this hijacking of the true meaning of the Constitution does not know a damn thing.

Everybody is out of step but Johnny.
 
Last edited:

Federalist

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
2,713
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Baloney times two.

Your example is NOT a political philosophy. It is simply the same unsupported and unsubstantiated character assassination allegation that you have repeatedly used against me. It is NOT a political philosophy.

You claim that I have a political philosophy. So produce it.

Okay, whatever you say. It's not a political philosophy. But you do believe it is acceptable to undermine and encroach upon the life and property of others. If you don't want to call that a political philosophy, that's fine by me. It certainly is a political stance or belief.

I have never advocated any of the goals or objectives which you claim and you have produced no evidence to support such a charge. Again, all you are doing is making unsubstantiated charges and engaging in character assassination simply because there may be a mild difference in how we see the margins or edges.

You specifically stated that you think it is ridiculous that the citizenry have the same firearms as police officers and national guardsmen.

I challenge you yet again - produce clear evidence of what my goals and objectives are and flush this yesterdays digested baloney where it belongs.

You wish to restrict the type of firearms that may be owned by the citizenry.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
There is a story about the proud mother who attends the town parade to see her son Johnny in the marching band. She took a prominent spot and she was surrounded by her fellow townspeople. As the hundred member marching band came by a few people audibly gasped when it became obvious that young Johnny was leading with the wrong foot compared to every other member of the band. A few looked embarrassed and cast negative looks at the mother. The lady did not flinch but proudly puffed out her ample bosom and said loudly "everybody is out of step but my Johnny."

Your post and your opinion is no different.

For nearly eighty years now we have heard much the same over and over and over and over again despite the changing of the composition of the Court from decade to decade to decade. Somehow someway, folks who share your views are the only ones in the nation who really are clued into what is going and and whats more they all know the way its really suppose to be. And we are to believe that the Supreme Court making all these rulings decade after decade to enable this hijacking of the true meaning of the Constitution does not know a damn thing.

Everybody is out of step but Johnny.


answer me this question?

why do judges of the USSC, and members of the congress call america "a democracy"????????

you want too talk about whos out of step!
 
Last edited:

Federalist

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
2,713
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
the USSC does not over rule the Constitution, no one or institution can challenge the constitutionally of the constitution.
Of course it doesn't. Many people choose to believe that the supreme court is the sole authority on the meaning of the constitution, which of course is stated nowhere in the constitution. In fact, every public official in these united states is responsible for interpreting the constitution in order to carry out his constitutionally mandated responsibility of upholding the constitution.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Okay, whatever you say.

Good. Its about time. Here is what I say: what you are doing is attempting to build a strawman and use it as some sort of standard. Screw your strawman. I don't need it.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
answer me this question?

why do judges of the USSC, and members of the congress call america "a democracy"????????

you want too talk about whos out of step!

Are you honestly asking me a question and you somehow someway expect me to supply you with the answer as to why the Supreme Court or Congress or anyone else other than myself uses a word?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course it doesn't. Many people choose to believe that the supreme court is the sole authority on the meaning of the constitution, which of course is stated nowhere in the constitution. In fact, every public official in these united states is responsible for interpreting the constitution in order to carry out his constitutionally mandated responsibility of upholding the constitution.

And which ones issue rulings on what passes muster when compared to the Constitution and their opinion is accepted as legal?
 

Federalist

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
2,713
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Good. Its about time. Here is what I say: what you are doing is attempting to build a strawman and use it as some sort of standard. Screw your strawman. I don't need it.
Strawman? I don't think so.

You believe it is acceptable to undermine or encroach upon the life and property of others. You have clearly demonstrated this proclivity in your many posts here on DP. For example, you wish to restrict the types of firearms that may be owned by American citizens.

Sometimes looking in the mirror is painful, but please remember that it is not the fault of the mirror. If you don't like what you see, perhaps you should make some changes in your ethical stance and political philosophy.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Are you honestly asking me a question and you somehow someway expect me to supply you with the answer as to why the Supreme Court or Congress or anyone else other than myself uses a word?

you are saying i am out of step, because i DO NOT believe the way, members of the USSC and members of congress believe.

so your saying i am wrong, because you asserting they know more, and are better educated on the subject of the constitution.

i am simply saying, they refer too the union as a country...which it is not...they refer too it as a democracy ....which it is not, they say we practice democratic principles, .....which we do not.

since i KNOW WHAT I HAVE STATED IS RIGHT, BECAUSE I AM QUOTING MADISON.........and when its comes too the constitution , MADISON IS GOD!

how can you say i am the one out of step, since i use Madison as my reason and my guide?????...............its simple, you and the others are out of step, and my foot work is prefect.

because you have nothing too show i am wrong in my words, all you have is denials....which is no evidence......buy only argument, which your falls flat!
 
Last edited:

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And which ones issue rulings on what passes muster when compared to the Constitution and their opinion is accepted as legal?


since you seem too have an answer to other government questions......why but you think they , people of the court say things which are incorrect, since they should know the law better than anyone?


and may i remind you, if you don't know, "Madison and Hamilton, say no law is constitutional, if the people say isn't"
 

FreedomFromAll

Political Parties = Corruption
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
19,024
Reaction score
5,938
Location
New Mexico USA
Gender
Male
since you seem too have an answer to other government questions......why but you think they , people of the court say things which are incorrect, since they should know the law better than anyone?


and may i remind you, if you don't know, "Madison and Hamilton, say no law is constitutional, if the people say isn't"

"they refer too it as a democracy ....which it is not, they say we practice democratic principles, .....which we do not."


I think that you are confusing direct democracy with other forms of democracy. For example in the US we have Representative Democracy/Republic


Perhaps you have not yet reached this far in your readings yet? Federalist No. 10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths".
 
Last edited:

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
the USSC does not over rule the Constitution, no one or institution can challenge the constitutionally of the constitution.

the constitution tells us that how changes to law must be made, and they are not being made constitutionally.

example: education and housing are not listed anywhere in the constitution, ...so how is the federal government involved?....... unconstitutionally.

i have read what Madison put forth, in the constitution and the federalist papers and our union is NOT being run according to that supreme law he created.

then people want too complain, because the government is corrupt and a few people are running it.............."well no wonder when the law is not being followed"

You are confusing Madison with Moses, because you think he got a set of laws from a Supreme Being. People who ask, "This proposal may be good for the country, but is it Constitutiional?" are not good for the country. Looking back from over 200 years of government failures and indifference to the people, the American people should have realized by now that this deified Constitution should have been only as a start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation. Laws should be based on present situations and increasing insight gained from experience; they should not have some overlord with absolute power to impose an out-of-date and ill-informed view of reality. The Constitution, in its high-handed sense of superiority for all time, imposed the very situation you are protesting against, "the government is corrupt and a few people are running it," but since you treat it like it had a divine origin, you are incapable of realizing that it is fallible and must be blamed every time things go wrong.
 
Last edited:

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You are confusing Madison with Moses, because you think he got a set of laws from a Supreme Being. People who ask, "This proposal may be good for the country, but is it Constitutiional?" are not good for the country. Looking back from over 200 years of government failures and indifference to the people, the American people should have realized by now that this deified Constitution should have been only as a start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation. Laws should be based on present situations and increasing insight gained from experience; they should not have some overlord with absolute power to impose an out-of-date and ill-informed view of reality. The Constitution, in its high-handed sense of superiority for all time, imposed the very situation you are protesting against, "the government is corrupt and a few people are running it," but since you treat it like it had a divine origin, you are incapable of realizing that it is fallible and must be blamed every time things go wrong.


here is why you are right and wrong.

government of the founders....you and i have never lived under!! , because government, destroyed republican government and have moved us closer to democracy which is an evil form of government.

even though the constitution demands we have republican government the government has disregarded it and sought to create there own ideas of what government should be according to them, WITHOUT going through the constitutional process.

i am simply saying the constitution can be changed to meet the needs of the times, but government must follow the constitution and change it as the constitution dictates.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
"they refer too it as a democracy ....which it is not, they say we practice democratic principles, .....which we do not."


I think that you are confusing direct democracy with other forms of democracy. For example in the US we have Representative Democracy/Republic


Perhaps you have not yet reached this far in your readings yet? Federalist No. 10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths".


since you want too post things...so will i.

article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution

"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.

democracy is a democratic form of government...the u.s. cannot legally be a democracy.

FEDERALIST PAPER #39 – "Conformity of the Plan to ->Republican Principles"......................NOT democratic principles.

federalist paper #43 -To the second question it may be answered, that if the general government should interpose by virtue of this constitutional authority, it will be, of course, bound to pursue the authority. But the authority extends no further than to a guaranty of a republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.

Madison also says, that every state (must be republican)...IF the state is changed from republican to anything other than republican through peaceful means of the people, then that state must LEAVE THE UNION, IF the state is changed from a republican form to anything other than republican , by force, meaning a group of people take over the government, when the union, must use its power to RETURN it too republican government.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
since you want too post things...so will i.

article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution

"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.

democracy is a democratic form of government...the u.s. cannot legally be a democracy.

FEDERALIST PAPER #39 – "Conformity of the Plan to ->Republican Principles"......................NOT democratic principles.

federalist paper #43 -To the second question it may be answered, that if the general government should interpose by virtue of this constitutional authority, it will be, of course, bound to pursue the authority. But the authority extends no further than to a guaranty of a republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.

Madison also says, that every state (must be republican)...IF the state is changed from republican to anything other than republican through peaceful means of the people, then that state must LEAVE THE UNION, IF the state is changed from a republican form to anything other than republican , by force, meaning a group of people take over the government, when the union, must use its power to RETURN it too republican government.


continued from above!

most of the things people think they know about our founders government is wrong, and its takes reading of the constitution the federalist papers and the founders letters themselves to discover the truth.

how many times have we been told Jefferson was a desist?..well its wrong.

Jefferson says our natural rights come from the KING OF KINGS......and that is Jesus...you can find this information in Jefferson personal writings, i am reading the 1904 printed version.
 
Last edited:

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
here is why you are right and wrong.

government of the founders....you and i have never lived under!! , because government, destroyed republican government and have moved us closer to democracy which is an evil form of government.

even though the constitution demands we have republican government the government has disregarded it and sought to create there own ideas of what government should be according to them, WITHOUT going through the constitutional process.

i am simply saying the constitution can be changed to meet the needs of the times, but government must follow the constitution and change it as the constitution dictates.
For the country to survive the 21st Century the government must follow the people, not a dead letter from the 18th Century. The Constitution did not establish a limited government except in the sense a government limited to a few people (oligarchy, which degenerates into a plutocracy and a hereditary aristocracy), excluding the vast majority of them and creating a growing dictatorship over them. The wannabe aristocrats who wrote this absolute law made it so vague that it could mean anything they wanted it to mean. But the people, who bear the brunt of the sneering decisions made by sheltered oligarchs, know what the laws enabled by the Constitution mean in real life terms. So the people should rule themselves according to what they can see happening as the result of laws made by those who don't have to suffer the consequences of their own isolated and ignorant legislation.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,700
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For the country to survive the 21st Century the government must follow the people, not a dead letter from the 18th Century. The Constitution did not establish a limited government except in the sense a government limited to a few people (oligarchy, which degenerates into a plutocracy and a hereditary aristocracy), excluding the vast majority of them and creating a growing dictatorship over them. The wannabe aristocrats who wrote this absolute law made it so vague that it could mean anything they wanted it to mean. But the people, who bear the brunt of the sneering decisions made by sheltered oligarchs, know what the laws enabled by the Constitution mean in real life terms. So the people should rule themselves according to what they can see happening as the result of laws made by those who don't have to suffer the consequences of their own isolated and ignorant legislation.

Second verse, same as the first.
 
Top Bottom