The quoted clauses provide other details, which I have not printed here, regarding the selection process. You can read the deleted material in your own copy of the constitution. It isn't relevant to the present article. What is relevant is the fact that there isn't any requirement whatsoever, anywhere in the provision, of a presidential election by popular vote.
Likewise, senators were intended to be selected by the states, not elected by the people.
Only the members of the House of Representatives were to be elected by the people. Even that wasn't necessarily intended to invoke the will of the majority. It was intended to preserve the powers of large states as compared to the powers of small states. It was a result of the Great Compromise, which had more to do with states rights than with democracy.
Clearly, the government established by the U.S. Constitution wasn't intended to be a democracy, but a federation of states. The insidious encroachment of ill-considered democracy into the federal process has resulted in the usurpation of the federal principles, and their replacement by the unwieldy mechanisms of a bloated and unmanageable parody of democracy. It isn't even a true democracy, but government by an elected oligarchy. The misapplication of democratic principles and the misrepresentation of the result has reduced the people to ignorance and servitude, and the U.S. government to such spectacles as the one we witnessed this past November and December. The continuing encroachment of so-called democracy into the tattered vestiges of the federation will, no doubt, contribute to the eventual and inevitable destruction of that federation.
For some time now, I've been calling for the repeal of the U.S. Constitution, the termination of the present federal union, and the elevation of the American states to the status of politically independent nations. The present course, however, is in the opposite direction, toward ever increasing concentrations of power in fewer hands. Unchecked, the trend will result in a One-World government, under which the people won't have any power at all, and will be ruled by distant masters in foreign lands.
Editor's Note: I have not verified the Related Links presented by K House eNews.
K-House eNews for December 12, 2000
Excerpts from eNews
For The Week Of December 12, 2000
Toward Global Governance
The term "global governance" began to replace former President George Bush's term "New World Order" in the mid-90s, once the latter term became a political liability as more and more people caught on to what it would mean. This follows the socialist pattern of constantly changing the names of programs, actions or laws to keep the opposition confused as to the actual intent of what is being promoted or passed.
The chief mechanism for achieving these goals is to incrementally transfer sovereignty and economic control bit by bit from nation-states to new supra-national globalist organizations, such as the United Nations. In some cases, such as the GATT accord, substantial control over countries' economies has been "deeded over" to unelected, unaccountable officials, who will make decisions affecting the lives of millions of those countries' citizens. All of this is usually done slowly with steps taken to ensure that public recognition of what is happening and a subsequent outcry of protest does not occur.
Bottom line on the new global governance: it does not have adequate protection of rights and the guarantee of freedoms built into it.
The Emerging European Superstate
U.S. Senate Ratifies Important Treaty — But No One Knew It;
Not Even The Senators
|treaties are to be integrated under a common
United Nations implementation regime. Under the Treaty, there is
no distinction between federal land and privately owned land when it comes
to U.N. control of land use.
A summary of U.N. environmental treaty goals: (1) To transfer control of land areas to the U.N. (2) to radically downsize the economies of western nations (the so-called "big polluters") and to (3) transfer the wealth of the western countries, especially the U.S., to third world countries to help solve environmental problems.
Don J. Cormier
Guy DeBord, by Anselm Jappe
(University of California Press, 1999)
Guy DeBord was the founder and leader of the Situationist International (SI), a poetic, philosophical, and political group which existed in France from the early 1950's to the early 1970's.
The purpose of the group was to beautify and purify everyday life, so that everyday life would have the intensity associated with artistic experience. The SI attempted to do this through the analysis of current social and economic conditions, through artistic and philosophical criticism, and by the creation of "situations" which would bring enlightenment to the participants. DeBord's thinking was based on Marxism, but highly modified by the ideas associated with French modern art, and by his own sharp perceptions. His book The Society of the Spectacle, was one of the earliest dissections of the relationship between mass media and the consumer society, and is now regarded as a classic of radical sociological exposition. The SI was prominently linked with the French student riots of May, 1968. Situationist slogans such as "Never work", and "It is better to die in action than live in boredom" were broadly appropriated by the student demonstrators. Situationist influence declined after 1968, partly because of conflicts within the group, and partly because the focus of the group was more critical than constructive. As leader, DeBord insisted on absolute adherence to his way of thinking, and "heretical" members were frequently expelled. Finally, DeBord was left alone.
He eked out a living as a writer in the 1970's and 1980's, maintaining his purity of vision at the price of conventional success. Afflicted with a degenerative nerve disease, he committed suicide in 1994. Anselm Jappe's book is an excellent academic exposition of DeBord's ideas, and his influence on modern culture. As much as Timothy Leary and Andy Warhol, Guy Degord deserves credit as a creator of the phenomena remembered as "the Sixties".
Lighting A Fire
Yes, yes, we both agree
But first, we will put a scoop in the bucket
Some of these buckets, after all, will be used
Let us decide, who will light the fire
How should we light the fire
But wait! We are the cart before the horse
Yes, yes, lighting a fire is so important
The fire must not burn too hot, or the cold will be displaced
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
What's an oxymoron?
A person who's crazy from breathing too much oxygen.
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.
Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.
Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.
Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and U.S. postage stamps. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor