Lol,....The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained

[Tiso0770]

This is pretty cool....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=youtu.be

[Travlyr]

That is a good video. It is very accurate analysis today since the elected officials do not have to obey the rule of law.

However, if the original intent of the Constitutions were upheld such as (a) the States and the People have the power of judicial review, and (b) enforcement of Article. VI. Clause. 3, and (c) sound monetary policy, (d) on and on etc., then honest voting would be a valid method for elections. In other words, if legitimate governance is desired, then the choices from the jungle would be much more clear because government would be limited to obeying the "Rule of Law" and that could only be changed by Amendment. Their impact on people's lives would be small because redistribution of wealth is not a valid function of government.

[Carson]

Good video. I'm glad the guy spoke fast though.

Ron Paul is still the best man. Really no other option.

[HOLLYWOOD]

nice find...

[falstaffpac]

This presentation explains a lot in my mind as to why we are stuck with a 2 party system. Thank you for posting.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is only a problem when representation is minimal. For example, if you had 20,000 house seats the problems would be alleviated to some extent at least in that it makes gerrymandering much more difficult, as well as better representing the views of a large swath of people. It's much easier to win when your election comes down to the votes of 1,000 people.

Other voting systems are horrible because they never address this issue of representation, and it creates a much more democratic system - worse for liberty. Why? Well first off, Democracy is not politically equitable. That is to say, in a 'true' democracy, territories with higher population should have more authority. This tends to centralize politics, as well as completely shut out all non-urban viewpoints. It's even worse for territories with low populations who essentially become mere occupied territories for the ruling-urbannites.

Do you really want California to have 10 Senators and Wyoming 1? New York with 8 and NH with 1? Now, I'd rather scrap the entire system, but honestly FPTP is much preferable to all the others. An ideal 'republican' system would enshrine something like 1 Representative for every 5,000 population. Go back to Senators being elected in the State legislatures. That's just a bandage on a wound though - the ultimate problem is that simply the US is far too large for a republic to ever function for its intended purpose. If you broke up all the States, I'd probably still argue most of them are too large for a functioning republic.

I've always maintained City-States to be the optimal size for Republics. That's about the only 'compromise' you'd ever see from me. :p (Let's have 5000 countries!)

[Occam's Banana]

the ultimate problem is that simply the US is far too large for a republic to ever function for its intended purpose. If you broke up all the States, I'd probably still argue most of them are too large for a functioning republic.

One "argument" for big government made by (modern) liberals is that "we need a big government because we've got such a big country."

They don't seem to realize that this is not a point in favor of having a big government - it's a point against having such a big country.

On second thought, they probably do realize it. It would explain why they hate secessionism so much.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is only a problem when representation is minimal. For example, if you had 20,000 house seats the problems would be alleviated to some extent at least in that it makes gerrymandering much more difficult, as well as better representing the views of a large swath of people. It's much easier to win when your election comes down to the votes of 1,000 people.

Other voting systems are horrible because they never address this issue of representation, and it creates a much more democratic system - worse for liberty. Why? Well first off, Democracy is not politically equitable. That is to say, in a 'true' democracy, territories with higher population should have more authority. This tends to centralize politics, as well as completely shut out all non-urban viewpoints. It's even worse for territories with low populations who essentially become mere occupied territories for the ruling-urbannites.

Do you really want California to have 10 Senators and Wyoming 1? New York with 8 and NH with 1? Now, I'd rather scrap the entire system, but honestly FPTP is much preferable to all the others. An ideal 'republican' system would enshrine something like 1 Representative for every 5,000 population. Go back to Senators being elected in the State legislatures. That's just a bandage on a wound though - the ultimate problem is that simply the US is far too large for a republic to ever function for its intended purpose. If you broke up all the States, I'd probably still argue most of them are too large for a functioning republic.

I've always maintained City-States to be the optimal size for Republics. That's about the only 'compromise' you'd ever see from me. :p (Let's have 5000 countries!)

That sounds like the most practical idea I've seen so far, albeit not very realistic. Madison really did want California to have 10 senators and Wyoming 1, by the way. He thought equal say for a smaller state would amount to minority rule. I tend to think the Senate as it is now was a good idea as long as we have a relatively proportional house, which we don't. As the population has increased, the House has stayed the same size for a long time now. Increasing the number of House Reps has its own problems, though. It seems like you are probably right that the US is simply too big. One more reason I am starting to wish Jefferson had not made the Louisiana Purchase.

Furthermore, however, we weren't meant to have nearly as unitary a government as we do now. We were largely a confederation in the Constitution. People will say that's why we abandoned the Articles of Confederation, but they misunderstand just how much of a Confederation we really were and are. The anti-federalists were right, but ultimately, they lost, and it has had a great number of consequences. Compromise was inevitable, but the only thing compromise has done for us in government is to compromise us as a country.

[Travlyr]

That sounds like the most practical idea I've seen so far, albeit not very realistic. Madison really did want California to have 10 senators and Wyoming 1, by the way. He thought equal say for a smaller state would amount to minority rule. I tend to think the Senate as it is now was a good idea as long as we have a relatively proportional house, which we don't. As the population has increased, the House has stayed the same size for a long time now. Increasing the number of House Reps has its own problems, though. It seems like you are probably right that the US is simply too big. One more reason I am starting to wish Jefferson had not made the Louisiana Purchase.

Furthermore, however, we weren't meant to have nearly as unitary a government as we do now. We were largely a confederation in the Constitution. People will say that's why we abandoned the Articles of Confederation, but they misunderstand just how much of a Confederation we really were and are. The anti-federalists were right, but ultimately, they lost, and it has had a great number of consequences. Compromise was inevitable, but the only thing compromise has done for us in government is to compromise us as a country.

The Anti-Federalists actually won because they were successful in getting the "Bill of Rights" attached. The Constitution does NOT allow for the bullshit we put up with today. The Mafia took America over in 1861 and then lost their grip for a while and re-gained their grip in a coup d'état on December 23, 1913. These are documented facts. Sure, none of the power trippers strictly obeyed the Constitution as they should be forced to do under Article. VI. Clause. 3. But that is human nature. The people have the power to throw the bums out. Why won't they do it? I'm not sure yet. Perhaps people like to be ruled? I just don't know, but the people have the power both lawfully and morally. History proves that.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Common Law Grand Jury (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/grandjuryrules.htm)

We have the power. All we have to do is use it.

[PaulConventionWV]

The Anti-Federalists actually won because they were successful in getting the "Bill of Rights" attached. The Constitution does NOT allow for the bullshit we put up with today. The Mafia took America over in 1861 and then lost their grip for a while and re-gained their grip in a coup d'état on December 23, 1913. These are documented facts. Sure, none of the power trippers strictly obeyed the Constitution as they should be forced to do under Article. VI. Clause. 3. But that is human nature. The people have the power to throw the bums out. Why won't they do it? I'm not sure yet. Perhaps people like to be ruled? I just don't know, but the people have the power both lawfully and morally. History proves that.


Common Law Grand Jury (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/grandjuryrules.htm)

We have the power. All we have to do is use it.

Either way, though, they were unsuccessful in many respects because the Constitution was ultimately passed. I would not have been in favor of a BoR because it turned out to be redundant and a resource for the Supreme Court to override state and local laws, which resulted in a too-powerful Supreme Court that has completely rewritten the Constitution because of its involvement, mostly in first amendment cases. This has created a one-size-fits-all ruling in many cases from religious freedom to freedom of speech. You would be correct if you pointed out, however, that they had to severely botch the meanings of those amendments to do so. They defined "Congress" in "Congress shall make now law..." as ALL levels of government. So now the Supreme Court decisions affect all levels of government because of the 14th amendment.

[Travlyr]

[QUOTE=Travlyr;4622824]The Anti-Federalists actually won because they were successful in getting the "Bill of Rights" attached. The Constitution does NOT allow for the bullshit we put up with today. The Mafia took America over in 1861 and then lost their grip for a while and re-gained their grip in a coup d'état on December 23, 1913. These are documented facts. Sure, none of the power trippers strictly obeyed the Constitution as they should be forced to do under Article. VI. Clause. 3. But that is human nature. The people have the power to throw the bums out. Why won't they do it? I'm not sure yet. Perhaps people like to be ruled? I just don't know, but the people have the power both lawfully and morally. History proves that.


Common Law Grand Jury (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/grandjuryrules.htm)

We have the power. All we have to do is use it.[/QUOTE Either way, though, they were unsuccessful in many respects because the Constitution was ultimately passed.

And that is a good thing. The Anti-Federalists saw that as a good thing. That is why they worked to get the Constitution ratified.

That is what people do not understand. Passing the Constitution was a good thing to do. Was it flawed? Indeed it was. But that does not change the FACT that it was a good thing to do. It can be amended. There was power in the U.S. Constitution to end slavery without a war just like the rest of the world did. There was power in the Constitution to stop aggressing on the native Americans. They did not do that. I don't know why. I do not understand the mindset of 19th century thinking, but I do understand the power granted to the people in the Constitution as the most power every granted to individuals... ever in history.

[Travlyr]

Let me quote Ron Paul on the Constitution.


On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
September 23, 2004

Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.

The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.

Although the 19th Century generally was kind to the intent of the Constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign states. The Civil War profoundly changed the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.

Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post-Civil War period, it was not until the 20th Century that steady and significant erosion of the constitutional restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties, but foreign affairs as well.

We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Our leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty, and our republican form of government.

Today the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, creates legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their districts, thus qualifying themselves for automatic re-election.

The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty. It's not the Constitution that gives us our freedom, the Constitution is needed to keep the power seekers from usurping that freedom and to hold government in check.

But our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing, and regulating. The complacent electorate, who are led to believe their interests and needs are best cared for by a huge bureaucratic welfare state, convince themselves that enormous federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with another day.

The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain confidence in the benefits of liberty -- and demand it from their elected leaders -- Congress will act appropriately.

The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly, and return our nation to its proper republican origins. The results would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, and a work made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire.

No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside the restraints placed on government by the Constitution.

The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it's understandable that abuse occurs. But it shouldn't be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace and the Constitution loses all meaning.

Unfortunately that is where we are today. This nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document, taught as gospel in our government schools, must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document -- but they correctly made the process tedious, and thus difficult.

Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it will be difficult if not impossible to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.

I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever, and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve a partisan victory. The real question is will we once again accept the clear restraints placed on the power of the national government by the Constitution.

Obviously the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important "election" of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it's worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant Constitution with which we have been so blessed."

It was a good thing to do to liberate people. It is too bad that we don't obey it anymore.

[Travlyr]

"The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty." - Ron Paul

[PaulConventionWV]

Let me quote Ron Paul on the Constitution.



It was a good thing to do to liberate people. It is too bad that we don't obey it anymore.

What a great speech by Dr. Paul once again. I agree 100%. There are very few things I disagree with him on.

[PaulConventionWV]

[QUOTE=PaulConventionWV;4623217]

And that is a good thing. The Anti-Federalists saw that as a good thing. That is why they worked to get the Constitution ratified.

That is what people do not understand. Passing the Constitution was a good thing to do. Was it flawed? Indeed it was. But that does not change the FACT that it was a good thing to do. It can be amended. There was power in the U.S. Constitution to end slavery without a war just like the rest of the world did. There was power in the Constitution to stop aggressing on the native Americans. They did not do that. I don't know why. I do not understand the mindset of 19th century thinking, but I do understand the power granted to the people in the Constitution as the most power every granted to individuals... ever in history.

I suppose it was a good thing at the time, although I'm sure the anti-federalists also recognized many shortcomings and weren't in full support of many parts of the Constitution, even though it was the best thing to do to get it ratified.

[Travlyr]

It would be much better if the Articles of Confederation were accepted. But the facts, (facts are stubborn things) is that the A of C was not powerful enough to even last 10 years. The constitution lasted "Four Score and Seven Years" + another 43 or so. All told that is 130 years. The secretive "do not audit me" central bank government coup d'état has lasted only 99 years in America, so far. The Constitution still set-up the most dominate long lasting government in America. We should obey the Constitution.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And that is a good thing. The Anti-Federalists saw that as a good thing. That is why they worked to get the Constitution ratified.

That is what people do not understand. Passing the Constitution was a good thing to do. Was it flawed? Indeed it was. But that does not change the FACT that it was a good thing to do. It can be amended. There was power in the U.S. Constitution to end slavery without a war just like the rest of the world did. There was power in the Constitution to stop aggressing on the native Americans. They did not do that. I don't know why. I do not understand the mindset of 19th century thinking, but I do understand the power granted to the people in the Constitution as the most power every granted to individuals... ever in history.

What? The Anti-Federalists worked to prevent the Constitution from coming to ratification, not the other way around. Dude, you have your history so far distorted and manipulated...There's a reason Patrick Henry said he 'smelled a rat'. The Constitution was a sham from the beginning to centralize power and authority. There's a reason Hamilton was one of the prime voices in favor of the Constitution and against the Articles, whereas Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and all the other Anti-Federalists were staunchly opposed to the Constitution.

[Travlyr]

What? The Anti-Federalists worked to prevent the Constitution from coming to ratification, not the other way around. Dude, you have your history so far distorted and manipulated...There's a reason Patrick Henry said he 'smelled a rat'. The Constitution was a sham from the beginning to centralize power and authority. There's a reason Hamilton was one of the prime voices in favor of the Constitution and against the Articles, whereas Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and all the other Anti-Federalists were staunchly opposed to the Constitution.
Yet all but one or two of them worked for ratification for the Constitution after the promise of including the "Bill of Rights" right?

[Travlyr]

What? The Anti-Federalists worked to prevent the Constitution from coming to ratification, not the other way around. Dude, you have your history so far distorted and manipulated...There's a reason Patrick Henry said he 'smelled a rat'. The Constitution was a sham from the beginning to centralize power and authority. There's a reason Hamilton was one of the prime voices in favor of the Constitution and against the Articles, whereas Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and all the other Anti-Federalists were staunchly opposed to the Constitution.

Baloney. What are you still in High School?

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history." Ron Paul

[Matt Collins]

A few years back I spoke to a doctorate of math, this guy teaches mathmatics at one of the foremost engineering schools in the country. And I asked him about voting and he flat out told me that "counting votes is one of the hardest things we can do mathmatically".

[heavenlyboy34]

Baloney. What are you still in High School?

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history." Ron Paul
AED is correct. You're cherry-picking RP quotes again. I can go quote-for-out of context quote for you, if you like. RP has spoken favorably of Lysander Spooner, for example.

[PaulConventionWV]

What? The Anti-Federalists worked to prevent the Constitution from coming to ratification, not the other way around. Dude, you have your history so far distorted and manipulated...There's a reason Patrick Henry said he 'smelled a rat'. The Constitution was a sham from the beginning to centralize power and authority. There's a reason Hamilton was one of the prime voices in favor of the Constitution and against the Articles, whereas Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and all the other Anti-Federalists were staunchly opposed to the Constitution.

NOBODY supported the Articles, nobody.

[PaulConventionWV]

Baloney. What are you still in High School?

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history." Ron Paul

It has some undesirable compromises in it. It's not a sham like AED says, it's just not optimal because people had to give and take for it to get ratified, and Hamilton ended up getting a lot of the power he wanted snuck in there, like the "necessary and proper" clause. That's all Hamilton's doing.

[Travlyr]

AED is correct. You're cherry-picking RP quotes again. I can go quote-for-out of context quote for you, if you like. RP has spoken favorably of Lysander Spooner, for example.

Okay ... very well... you're on... let the race begin... BTW... Just for the record ... "Out-of-Context" means that the quote is not representative of the intent of the original poster and not referenced, or linked, to the original quote.

Since Ron Paul gave his famous speech on the Constitution ... and I posted his entire speech from the quote in a positive manner ... then it is all in context for readers to enjoy. It is only when the quote is posted in a negative manner that in-context quotes matter. Please extend the same courtesy.

Note: this is in context because it is his entire speech. I did not cut him off mid-sentence.


On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
September 23, 2004

Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.

The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.

Although the 19th Century generally was kind to the intent of the Constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign states. The Civil War profoundly changed the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.

Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post-Civil War period, it was not until the 20th Century that steady and significant erosion of the constitutional restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties, but foreign affairs as well.

We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Our leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty, and our republican form of government.

Today the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, creates legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their districts, thus qualifying themselves for automatic re-election.

The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty. It's not the Constitution that gives us our freedom, the Constitution is needed to keep the power seekers from usurping that freedom and to hold government in check.

But our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing, and regulating. The complacent electorate, who are led to believe their interests and needs are best cared for by a huge bureaucratic welfare state, convince themselves that enormous federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with another day.

The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain confidence in the benefits of liberty -- and demand it from their elected leaders -- Congress will act appropriately.

The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly, and return our nation to its proper republican origins. The results would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, and a work made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire.

No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside the restraints placed on government by the Constitution.

The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it's understandable that abuse occurs. But it shouldn't be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace and the Constitution loses all meaning.

Unfortunately that is where we are today. This nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document, taught as gospel in our government schools, must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document -- but they correctly made the process tedious, and thus difficult.

Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it will be difficult if not impossible to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.

I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever, and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve a partisan victory. The real question is will we once again accept the clear restraints placed on the power of the national government by the Constitution.

Obviously the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important "election" of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it's worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant Constitution with which we have been so blessed."

[Travlyr]

Your turn.

[Travlyr]

It has some undesirable compromises in it. It's not a sham like AED says, it's just not optimal because people had to give and take for it to get ratified, and Hamilton ended up getting a lot of the power he wanted snuck in there, like the "necessary and proper" clause. That's all Hamilton's doing.

The interpretation of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" is to be determined by the States or the People.

[Travlyr]

It has some undesirable compromises in it. It's not a sham like AED says, it's just not optimal because people had to give and take for it to get ratified, and Hamilton ended up getting a lot of the power he wanted snuck in there, like the "necessary and proper" clause. That's all Hamilton's doing.

Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. It was too late but he did it anyway.

[Travlyr]

AED is correct. You're cherry-picking RP quotes again. I can go quote-for-out of context quote for you, if you like. RP has spoken favorably of Lysander Spooner, for example.

The question is: Do you want to live a free life? You don't seem to want that. When I was young we could buy dynamite in the hardware store. Is that something you would like to do today, or do you wish to live under tyranny all your life? It is your choice.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

NOBODY supported the Articles, nobody.

Another one devoid of any knowledge of our founding.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken93.html

Henry said THIS at the Virginia 1788 Ratification debate:

"Revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome: instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned…against faction and turbulence: I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge also the new form of Government may effectually prevent it: Yet, there is another thing it will as effectually do: itwill oppress and ruin the people…I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousnes of the people or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, Sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."

The man...said that...about the Constitution.

Ever more somber words from our greatest forebear...

"If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object…But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire."

If you were interested in the truth you would read this mans word, instead of the lies and deceit of Hamilton, Madison, and the rest of the Federalist progeny.

[Travlyr]

Another one devoid of any knowledge of our founding.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken93.html

Henry said THIS at the Virginia 1788 Ratification debate:

"Revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome: instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned…against faction and turbulence: I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge also the new form of Government may effectually prevent it: Yet, there is another thing it will as effectually do: itwill oppress and ruin the people…I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousnes of the people or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, Sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."

The man...said that...about the Constitution.

Ever more somber words from our greatest forebear...

"If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object…But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire."

If you were interested in the truth you would read this mans word, instead of the lies and deceit of Hamilton, Madison, and the rest of the Federalist progeny.

That may be what they said. Yet what they found was that they could not have their Empire without subverting the Constitution.