Who's responsible for this meme?

[Brandyman]

A friend wrote:
America's political system was not a democracy where the majority gets to vote away your rights. It's a constitutional republic protecting the individual against the majority.
Another friend responds: Yes, that is the theory. The practice and social context behind it was to protect the rich against the rest of the people -- those are the individuals protected.

The second friend is a former sociology professor, and a liberal, nonpracticing Jewess. Is this a Jewish turnaround trick she was indoctrinated with? I'd really like some commentary on this. (Any other "meme" welcome, too...)

[Wimpy]

Democracy is government by fiat and plays towards collectivism.  A constitutional based republic is intended to avoid fiat rule or, at the very least, slow it down.  If your friend # 2 is pushing the meme that a Constitutional Republic provides protection for the elite from the unruly mob, it seems to be a transparent attempt to appeal to the mob and justify collectivism.  Everyone is protected if the constitutional Republic operates as intended.  The clear and present danger, or weakness if you will, to any Constitutional Republic is mob rule circumventing the many checks and balances.  Sort of like what is happening here in America; super majority in Congress, Executive branch defying existing law and stacking the SCOTUS with more than one "liberal, nonpracticing Jewess": each occurrence designed to circumvent the intended mechanics of a Constitutional Republic.

The Meme you have discovered appears to be yet another dialectical attack from a practicing Marxists who is, additionally,  just another lying fucking commie  jew bitch.  I haven't seen this Meme spelled out as you presented but I notice, much to my ongoing chagrin, that "All" media refer to the US Constitutional Republic as a "Democracy" and it's been propagated for well over 30 years.

[Brandyman]

Is the U.S. Constitution a fixed thing to be followed and never revised, or even supplanted? Can it evolve? Or our form of government? If one says it's served us so well, particularly in America's first hundred years, might we not be attributing that success to the wrong things? Maybe most nations start with enough of whatever good thing to last that long; the energy and vibrancy either dies or else it's required of them to move with some change that comes along in the nature of the world or its people.

Our government is still fucked up despite the influence of the Constitution, not even considering the issue of sabotage. If this is because we are afraid to discriminate and still allow for those with criminal minds to have "freedom" to get into whatever positions they want in business, government, etc., then maybe we can look to a time when we will have more of a meritocracy in place. In such a situation, for example, maybe we'd WANT government to provide jobs for everyone, even when people lose one -- help everyone find the right type of job for which they're suited, and no one would even have to work 40 hours a week because of the money freed up when we rescue it from the criminals, Jewish and whomever else.

[Wimpy]

Is the U.S. Constitution a fixed thing to be followed and never revised, or even supplanted? Can it evolve? Or our form of government? If one says it's served us so well, particularly in America's first hundred years, might we not be attributing that success to the wrong things? Maybe most nations start with enough of whatever good thing to last that long; the energy and vibrancy either dies or else it's required of them to move with some change that comes along in the nature of the world or its people.

Our government is still fucked up despite the influence of the Constitution, not even considering the issue of sabotage. If this is because we are afraid to discriminate and still allow for those with criminal minds to have "freedom" to get into whatever positions they want in business, government, etc., then maybe we can look to a time when we will have more of a meritocracy in place. In such a situation, for example, maybe we'd WANT government to provide jobs for everyone, even when people lose one -- help everyone find the right type of job for which they're suited, and no one would even have to work 40 hours a week because of the money freed up when we rescue it from the criminals, Jewish and whomever else.

In the US Constitution there is a process to amend, add or delete Amendments to the Bill of Rights but I'm not sure about this process as it would apply to Articles of the Constitution.  Anybody?

I think that it would be quite possible to Amend the Bill of Rights to forbid the control of the money supply by a Private Corporation, establish term limits for all elected or appointed government positions and forbid PACS.  There are many things that could be done to adjust for the inadequacies of our present form of government without resorting to starting over or burning down the house.  There are many holes that could be plugged and many laws that should be enforced but I do agree that things are presently quite fucked up.

[Helphand]

liberal, nonpracticing Jewess

An oxymoron.

Who's responsible for this meme?

A rhetorical question, presumably

[Christopher Marlowe]

Another friend responds: Yes, that is the theory. The practice and social context behind it was to protect the rich against the rest of the people -- those are the individuals protected.

The second friend is a former sociology professor, and a liberal, nonpracticing Jewess. Is this a Jewish turnaround trick she was indoctrinated with?

Without support it is only an assertion. She could back it up with a letter from Madison to Hamilton saying, "We need a clause to keep the poor people from taking over."
This Federalist Paper by Madison is right on point:

The Same Subject Continued (The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection) From the Daily Advertiser. Thursday, November 22, 1787.

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS

We can see that one of the major rights with which Madison is concerned are those of the rich minority:

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.

The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

Madison then goes on to compare the Pure Democracy to A Republic which he defines as

a government in which the scheme of representation takes place

And then Madison goes about describing the best means of imposing

the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority...

Is Madison just a greedy capitalist out to to "protect the rich against the rest of the people"?
I suppose that is one way of looking at it.  But the issue as Madison framed it is unavoidable:  

To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of [a selfish & passionate majority], and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government

Property is only one of the rights secured by our government. We have a government of limited powers and fixed laws, and where certain rights are guaranteed.  Habeas Corpus, No Bills of Attainder, and No Ex Post Facto Laws are guarantees of freedom before we even get to the Bill of Rights.  

The Constitution is not easily amended, but requires 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states and so provides a measure of stability in the document.  

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

There does not appear to be any limit to the Amendment process, except that the Amendments

shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes

, so I guess they cannot be fraudulent, and

no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

What is the other choice? I suppose a Pure Democracy would allow the majority to do whatever they wanted; and rather than representative government, the people themselves would vote on issues.

Is it right to put barriers in the way of pure democracy?
Why don't we let children vote? Because even though they are human beings, we do not trust children to form decisions. Kids do stupid things.  
So do adults. Adults are irrational. Some use drugs. Some are crazy.  Some watch television and believe the sh*t the anchor is telling them.  
But allowing that human beings are entitled to basic rights, given by God and not the government, and by enshrining those rights in a document that is very difficult to amend, Madison was able to secure our liberty to some extent.

Property is always going to be a sticking point. There is no sense in allowing the majority to take everyone's property and divide up according to some new scheme. Injustice would surely result.  

At the same time, it appears that the concentration of wealth into very few hands is just as big a threat to liberty as a pure democracy.  In the years since WWII, the people of the US have been frightened by "Communism" abroad, and meanwhile the zionist Jews have taken the control of our Banks & Money Supply, all of the Media, and the Government.

IMHO, Madison's answer to this problem,

greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest

and

greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority

solves the same problem as to Property. One of the underlying principles of our government is that power should be divided by co-equal branches, and by a federal/state system, because its concentration brings corruption. So it is with wealth.  Too-big-to-fail banks led to the bailout of the banks that CAUSED THE CRISIS, and the taking over of the little banks who were the unwitting victims of the crisis.  

As Madison pointed out, the power to tax can be used to re-distribute the shillings. And we have also seen the power to spend being used for the same purpose. Government policy should advance the vision of many centers of wealth rather than a few; many entrepreneurs rather than a mega-conglomerate; many small millionaires instead of Bill Gates.  

The idea of the free market is a good one, but a free market needs safeguards.  Money is a commodity, and it should not be monopolized by private banks.  Interest in private hands is a fraudulent scheme, but in the hands of government banks it is a tax. Better to use it as a tax and relieve the burden from our income.

Every state should have a bank. All mortgages should issue from the bank of the state in which the property is located.  All money should be spent, not borrowed, into existence at a rate commensurate with the growth of the economy. The interest returned on the loans to state banks would pay for the expenses of the state.  

The people are presently responsible for the debts of the banks, but the banks enjoy the profits from the interest gained:

USC Title 14 Chapter 16 §1828 "insured deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government."

Similarly, the federal reserve private banks issue the FRN, which is backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.  
The natural result of this situation would be that the banks would issue a lot of worthless debt, make a lot of money from the interest, and then leave the government to make good on all of that. And that is exactly what is happening now.

If the people are responsible for the debt of the banks, they should profit from the interest. The interest on all debt should go into the public coffers.  

And this latest scheme should be stopped. The banks and their representatives should be arrested and their profits clawed back. These pirates who made themselves rich at our expense should not be protected by the government against the rest of the people.