"The majority can elect to do something like banning the practice of a specific religion while a representative is IDEALLY there

to represent ALL of their constituents, rather than a mob mentality." "I have been on the receiving end of a righteous mob too many times to think important decisions should be handled by a majority vote. This may sound elitist, but I've seen how the masses have surrendered their personal responsibilities and chose not too think critically."

"The only healthy relationship between people and government is a completely interpendant relationship (a government OF "the people"). Where the government IS the people. Depending on government to operate just enough services to PROTECT our Freedoms. Freedom to survive, peacefully, and happily. However WE determine the undefined standards of what is survival, happy, and peaceful." Either you believe in a government of we the people or you don't Che you cannot play both sides of the fence here. Here is another quote from one of your beloved Founding Fathers: "The people immediately should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled." Roger Sherman

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_531.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Sherman Here's a quote from another of your beloved Founding Fathers:
"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by change, they therefore will ever maintain good government." Alexander Hamilton

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us9.cfm

LOL Americans weren't even allowed to know what went on during the Constitutional Convention until 53 YEARS later when James Madison's notes were published in 1840!!! http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0002.htm

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises"(this is a power congress did not have under the Articles of Confederation) "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations" (this is just one of the constitutional clauses that provides for legal, constitutional oppression by government, congress defines what a felony is and that trumps everything in our Bill of Rights) "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" (congress was given the oppressive authority to use the Army to crush rebellions by the people) "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" (another clause that gives congress the power to legislate as they see fit) http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei We don't even have the right to elect Senators under the Constitution even they are elected by State Legislatures rather than by the people. We have the right to elect Senators but the Vice President is the head of the Senate. this clearly violates the supposed seperation of powers by mixing the Executive with the Legislative branch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States "Either way, the constitution provided revolutionary ideas"

The Supreme Court is elected by the President who can be elected by the Electoral College and Supreme Court Justices serve FOR LIFE! Also under the Constitution only the Supreme Court has the power to hold the President accountable to any illegality by law. Now why in the hell would a group of Justices appointed for life by the President EVER hold him accountable for evil? What is so revolutionary about this document to you? Can you not see that the Constitution provides more than groundwork for a legal oligarchy? "The domination we are experiencing is the product of letting ourselves become dependant on the system." No it wasn't Che. The domination you see today was WRITTEN into the constitution by allowing for a standing Army that could be used to crush rebellions by the people anytime congress or the President saw fit. As a matter of fact the Army was used just two years after the Constitution was ratified to crush the Whiskey Rebellion which was a protest against Alexander Hamilton's unfair taxation which elitist George Washington happily used the iron fist to end. This also could not be done without the US Constitution specifying that the US Federal government now had the power to collect taxation! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution George Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton months before the Constitution was ratified: "The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians, or are under the influence of local views." http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/constitution/1787/hamilton1.html What do you think George Washington meant by this do you think he was joking? Of course he wasn't. These guys meant business and they wrote a strong Federal Government into the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation illegally which only provided for a weak National Government chained to the control of the States. This was NEVER meant to be a government by the people Che and was meant to be an elitist Republic from the getgo where our "betters" would govern us as they saw fit just as Plato explained in his Republic. Ron Paul knows this and he was telling you this in that article I posted. Every reference to "the people" is nothing more than a thin veneer in the Constitution and is just vague legalism that any pice of shit lawyer can drive a Mach truck through.

Furthermore THE CONSTITUTION WAS NEVER AUTHORIZED BY THE PEOPLE! As I stated it was created and ratified in a building with guards outside the door and the windows closed by rich, wealthy, lawyers, slaveowners and descendents of the English Monarchy. Now regarding whether or not I believe Democracy is the best form of Government I'd have to say no and I see a big Democratic Federal Governemnt as no better than a Big Republican Government. No form of Government can be a fair government and care about the people when it is that big and where we don't know those supposedly representing us any better than we know the next man on the street. Government can only be fair if it is a small tribal government of no bigger than the size of a county in my opinion even a State government is too big. Now with that said if I had to choose I would much rather choose to be oppressed by people I know than some wrinkled, wealthy, asshole who never did a damned thing for me or suffered next to my people. I know my people and my people are predictable therefore nothing they did would surprise me. I would much rather be oppressed by people who at least knew what it was to suffer and who might think they were doing so for my own good than some Eugenist dirtbag who felt it was right to rule over me because he was superior to people of my ilk genetically. I have more faith in the people waking up than in some elitist we think we elect "doing the right thing" under a slickly tyrannical document. At the time the constitution was being created the Founding Fathers were busy propagandizing under pseudonyms about how we would be invaded by other countries any moment and how we needed a strong National Government with a Strong Federal Army to protect us. Patrick Henry exposed this in a famous quote in from of the Philly Ratifying Convention: "It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength an army, and the militia of the states. This is an idea extremely ridiculous: gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty. Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? The honorable gentleman said that great danger would ensue if the Convention rose without adopting this system. I ask, Where is that danger? I see none. Other gentlemen have told us, within these walls, that the union is gone, or that the union will be gone. Is not this trifling with the judgment of their fellow-citizens? Till they tell us the grounds of their fears, I will consider them as imaginary. I rose to make inquiry where those dangers were; they could make no answer: I believe I never shall have that answer.

Is there a disposition in the people of this country to revolt against the dominion of laws? Has there been a single tumult in Virginia? Have not the people of Virginia, when laboring under the severest pressure of accumulated distresses, manifested the most cordial acquiescence in the execution of the laws? What could be more awful than their unanimous acquiescence under general distresses? Is there any revolution in Virginia? Whither is the spirit of America gone? Whither is the genius of America fled? It was but yesterday, when our enemies marched in triumph through our country. Yet the people of this country could not be appalled by their pompous armaments: they stopped their career, and victoriously captured them. Where is the peril, now, compared to that? Some minds are agitated by foreign alarms. Happily for us, there is no real danger from Europe; that country is engaged in more arduous business: from that quarter there is no cause of fear: you may sleep in safety forever for them.

Where is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us; that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties: to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty. Let not gentlemen be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated."

http://www.unc.edu/~gvanberg/Courses/Henry%20June%205.htm Does this method of fearmongering to justify Big Government sound familar? When people asked Patrick Henry why he didn't join the Constitutional Convention he said "Because I smelt a rat". He also stated at the Virginia Ratifying convention that in regards to the Constitution: "According to the mode prescribed, Congress may tell you that they have a right to make the vote of one gentleman go as far as the votes of a hundred poor men. The power over the manner admits of the most dangerous latitude. They may modify it as they {176} please. They may regulate the number of votes by the quantity of property, without involving any repugnancy to the Constitution. I should not have thought of this trick or contrivance, had I not seen how the public liberty of Rome was trifled with by the mode of voting by centuries, whereby one rich man had as many votes as a multitude of poor men. The plebeians were trampled on till they resisted. The patricians trampled on the liberties of the plebeians till the latter had the spirit to assert their right to freedom and equality. The result of the American mode of election may be similar. Perhaps I may be told that I have gone through the regions of fancy that I deal in noisy exclamations and mighty professions of

patriotism. Gentlemen may retain their opinions; but I LOOK ON THAT PAPER AS THE MOST FATAL PLAN THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONCIEVED TO ENSLAVE A FREE PEOPLE. If such be your rage for novelty, take it, and welcome; but you never shall have my consent." Patrick Henry http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_07.htm

But why choose between Republicanism or Democracy? I choose NO GOVERNMENT other than the government of my own household and my own family and MAYBE my own community. That's the only Government I trust because these are the only people I know it's as simple as that really. There's only one direction Federal Governments can go and history has taught me well in this regard.