Manny Montes: Circumventing the Constitution
The concept of constitutional originalism is that the meaning of the Constitution should remain the same until it is properly changed by amendment. This should be so because the Constitution is not the law that governs us.
The Constitution is the law that governs those who governs us.
And they by no means are to have the ability to change the law that governs them without the amendment process. Enter the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.” Constitutional amendments have been introduced in the past to eliminate the Electoral College, and failed. To the postmodern progressive socialist democrats, this is not acceptable.
George Rebane’s excellent column on the Electoral College stated accurately, speaking of the Virginia state legislature, they “passed a bill that aims to do an end run around the Electoral College,” Virginia becoming the latest state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The compact calls for each member state to award all of its electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in the national election. This effectively transforms our government into a democracy, i.e., the majority rules, essentially eliminating the Electoral College without amending the Constitution.
So our nation will be transformed into a facsimile of California, where the rats in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento dictate how the lives of us rural mice must be lived. Is there any wonder why the “State of Jefferson” initiative is being promulgated? The rats on the national scene will be those in New York and California. The rural mice in fly-over country will suffer the same fate of us rural mice in California.
Support Local Journalism
Mr. Rebane goes on to state, “The dangers of direct democracy have been studied for centuries; its devastating effect on nations having accepted it fill countless books and history texts.”
James Madison, in Federalist 10 states, “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.”
James Madison, in Federalist 10, eloquently argued against the evils of the tyranny of majority rule, i.e., a democracy. The Electoral College was established to prevent a majority rule democracy. Irrespective of the changes by amendment since it was first established, the intent of its purpose has not changed. To the postmodern progressive, the Constitution may as well be written in Sanskrit.
Rob Chrisman’s recent, also excellent, contribution on what has happened to our republic over the many decades is spot on. We are the frog in the pot, and the postmodern progressive’s adroit skills of regulating the heat has brought the water to near boiling point. Even casually listening to the host of Democratic presidential hopefuls reveals their goals to mean America no more. They want to take the gem that is our USA, and place between an anvil and a sledge hammer.
Dick Sciaroni’s recent column reveals prejudice with his fixation on “white males”, and ignorance of the concept of individual liberty. He states, “blindly deferring to the decision of a small cohort of wealthy white males 220 years ago about how America should be governed — a republic not a democracy — makes as much sense as treating today’s diseases with 18th century elixirs and bleeding.” In the first instance, individual liberty means having the freedom to live as you see fit. Individual liberty is just that, any change to that is to restrict it to some extent. A republic is intended to obviate the potential evils of tyranny of the majority. To make the comparison between liberty and treating a disease with “elixirs and bleeding” is asinine.
The governing creed of individual liberty is relevant and of central concern whether it was implemented yesterday, 220 or 1,000 years ago. He ends the paragraph with, “After all, we are talking about our government. It’s ours. Why can’t we change it?”
The answer, Mr. Sciaroni, is that we can if the citizens of “our government” wants the change. The process is called amending the Constitution. Anything else is circumventing the Constitution, but we all know, progressive Democrats have no compunction in doing so.
Mr. Sciaroni and others exclaim, that change is constant. We should not be afraid of change as it relates to our government institutions. Change that means the diminution of individual liberty is change that patriotic Americans must defeat at every turn.
Rob Chrisman’s admonitions must be taken to heart.
Manny Montes lives in Auburn.
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
Connect with needs and opportunities from
Get immediate access to organizations and people in our area that need your help or can provide help during the Coronavirus crisis.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User