Sunday, February 10, 2013
How the CONstitution was the enabling act for the 1% "minority of the opulent"
MADison called out by Ben Franklin on plans to enable unjust privileges for the 1%
Note Madison's remarks: "...as had been observed (by Mr. Pinckney) we had not among us those hereditary distinctions of rank which were a great source of the contests in the ancient governments as well as the modern States of Europe...We cannot, however, be regarded even at this time as one homogeneous mass....In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former."
"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections? and, unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and, to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered."
For a more thorough analysis of MADison's CON scheme see:
Toward an American Revolution
Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions by Jerry Fresia
Chapter 3: The Constitution: Resurrection of An Imperial System
Go to http://cyberjournal.org/authors/fresia/ for the whole book online....
Summary of MADison's plot:
" “Hence it is that the two Branches should be elected by Persons differently qualified; and in short, that, as far as possible, they should be made to represent different Interests.”
“Under this Reasoning I would establish a Legislature of two Houses. The Upper should represent the Property; the lower the Population of the State. The upper should be chosen by Freemen possessing in Lands and Houses one thousand Pounds, the lower by all such as had resided four Years in the Country and paid Taxes. The first should be chosen for four, the last for two Years; They should in Authority be coequal.” [But they aren't. Examine all the special powers granted only to the Senate, i.e. approval of treaties, executive appointments, attorneys and judges.]
Benjamin Franklin's expose' of the unjust design of MADison's scam:
"Several Questions may arise upon this Proposition. 1st. What is the Proportion of Freemen possessing Lands and Houses of one thousand Pounds Value compared to that of Freemen whose Possessions are inferior? Are they as one to ten? [10%] Are they even as one to twenty? [5%] I should doubt whether they are as one to fifty [2%]. If this [1-2%] Minority is to chuse a Body expresly to controul that which is to be chosen by the great Majority of the Freemen, what have this great Majority done to forfeit so great a Portion of their Right in Elections? Why is this Power of Controul, contrary to the Spirit of all Democracies, to be vested in a [1%] Minority, instead of a Majority? Then is it intended or is it not that the Rich should have a Vote in the Choice of Members for the lower House, while those of inferior Property are deprived of the Right of voting for Members of the upper House? And why should the upper House, chosen by a Minority have equal Power with the lower, chosen by a Majority? Is it supposed that Wisdom is the necessary Concomitant of Riches, and that one Man worth a thousand Pound must have as much Wisdom as twenty, who have each only 999?
And why is Property to be represented at all? Suppose one of our Indian Nations should now agree to form a civil Society, each Individual would bring into the Stock of the Society little more Property than his Gun and his Blanket; for at present he has no other; we know that when one of them has attempted to keep a few Swine, he has not been able to maintain a Property in them, his Neighbours thinking they have a Right to kill and eat them whenever they want Provision; it being one of their Maxims, that Hunting is free for all; the Accumulation therefore of Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in every Society must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of the Society, in the Execution of its Laws; private Property therefore is a Creature of Society and is subject to the Calls of that Society whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power; but as the Return of an Obligation previously received or the Payment of a just Debt. The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants who club their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important Ends of Civil Society are the personal Securities of Life and Liberty; these remain the same in every Member of the Society, and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations I am sorry to see the Signs this Paper I have been considering affords of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a Predominancy in Government, a Choice peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature, to be proudly called the upper House, and the other Branch chosen by the Majority of the People degraded by the Denomination of the lower, and giving to this upper House a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the lower. I hope therefore that our Representatives in the Convention will not hastily go into these Innovations, but take the Advice of the Prophet, “Stand firmly [crossed out?] in the old Ways, view the ancient Paths, consider them well, and be not among those that are given to Change.”
-- Benjamin Franklin