Wednesday, September 28, 2016

On the Electoral College: The Last Vestiges of the Old Republic

I encountered the following on Facebook.
Make everyone's vote count equally. Eliminate the Electoral College. Do you agree?

The answer I gave is as follows, reblogged here for those who won't see it there:

No, I do not.

I actually propose restoring the electoral college to it's original glory, first by removing the state-by-state requirements that have cropped up requiring all electors from a State to vote according to the popular vote in that State, and secondly by requiring the national vote to be for the electors in each State (as far as the People can appoint them -- some would be appointed by the Legislatures, of course), and NOT for the Presidency.

This would cause the national vote to work as intended originally -- a Republic, not a Democracy.

I also, of course, advocate for the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments -- again, to restore the Republic to functioning AS a Republic.

Of course, I'm also of the mind that the South was right when they claimed a right to secede, and that the very fact that the North prosecuted a war to bring them back into the fold fundamentally changed us from a Constitutionally limited Union of the several States (i.e. where the powers of each sovereign State is delegated to the Federal Government provisionally upon said Government's strict adherence to the limits and provisions of the Constitution by which said powers were delegated) to a Nation with semi-autonomous administrative districts (i.e. the sovereignty is the Nation's, and is delegated down to the States for administration of the Federal Will).

In effect, when the North overrode, by force, a hithertofore undelegated Power of the Sovereign States -- namely, the power of secession itself; that is, the voluntary nature of the delegation of ANY Power from it's own Sovereignty -- said Sovereignty was overcome and relocated (along with all its attendant Powers, not only the one under contention) so as no longer to flow from the People, through the States, to the Nation, but rather to originate with the Nation and flow, according as IT (not they) see fit, down to the States, and to the People, respectively.

Previously, the Sovereign Powers of the People were only to be parceled out in small amounts, both through the various States (Senate) and from the People themselves (House), to the Federal Government according to what the People saw as advantageous to better secure and increase their general welfare, they themselves retaining what Powers were not explicitly delegated to either their respective States or, as mentioned, through and with them to the Federal government, as their own natural Rights under God, without limitation.

But with the prosecution of War to forcibly override any Sovereign decision, not previously delegated, the Sovereignty as a whole was torn from the People, and from their States, respectively, and re-located in the Nation itself. This is especially true insofar as the particular Power torn was the ability to withhold a Power from delegation in the first place, or to retrieve it when desired. This Power is the Keeper of the Gate of Sovereignty, and the Gate itself. If it is torn away, the Castle lies open and defenseless, ripe for the plunder of all its Treasures, namely, every other Power -- indeed, the Sovereignty itself.

Which plunder the North effected. The Republic died when the North fired the first shot on Fort Sumter.

Under this new situation, "rights" -- although they could hardly be called that any more -- now originate, not with God, nor with the People, but with the Federal Government, to be parceled out to the States and the People, respectively (note the reversal of order), according to the Will of the Nation's governing body/bodies, who have become largely unaccountable to their supposed "constituents" -- now rendered as Subjects, although euphemistically still called "Citizens" and kept peaceable (and pliable) by the largess of their new Sovereign, mostly by the granting (where convenient) of "democratic" "rights" and "voice" in the (newly re-labeled) "democracy".

Most of the Amendments to the Constitution since the Civil War (including the aforementioned 16th and 17th) have been only to bring the Constitution's structure into line with this new reality. And the Supreme Court has been using the new Amendments (particularly the 14th) as a crowbar to enforce this new reality ever since, to the destruction of everything the Citizens of the Republic held dear: namely, the Individual and, as the first and fullest recipient of delegated Sovereignty, the Family.

If you love the Republic, if you love the older Order, where you delegate your sovereign Powers, received from your Creator, in a limited and voluntarily fashion, and in respectively decreasing quantity, to your family first, then to your city, then to your county, then to your State, and finally to the Federation -- that is, if you love America as it was founded -- then no, the Electoral College should not be eliminated, but strengthened.

However, I think we are far past the point of restoring the Republic to its former glory. Next step: Empire. (All Democracies end in Empire. Although there may be Destruction first, if we can't make the transition well.)

Ben Franklin said of the new Government that it was "a Republic, if you can keep it." Well, Mr. Franklin, sadly, we did not keep it. It did not even last 100 years, although the myth of it is only now, some 150 years or so after the mortal wound was struck, rattling out its final sighs.

So perhaps the Electoral College should be eliminated. Perhaps we should finally put a stake in the myth of the Republic, and get on with the business of Empire.

While we're at it, we may as well get rid of the Congress also, since the Courts have been brought under the power of the Executive already, as has the Military, having been recently purged of all loyalty to the People.

"The regional governors will now have direct control over their territories."

"But how will the Emperor maintain Control, without the Bureaucracy?"

"Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."

2 comments:

  1. For the record, I am aware that my memory of the exact quote at the end was a little faulty. But for the purposes of this commentary, I have decided to leave it as written.

    The exact quote is:

    "The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."

    "That's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?"

    "The Regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."

    However, as I have it in the OP I think it flows better and makes the point just as well if not better. So I'm leaving it as is, with this comment as correction for the pedants. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course, it can easily be argued that the problem of Sovereignty in America did not start with the Civil War, but when the Constitutional Congress ripped it from the Confederation, or when the People themselves stole it from the King of England, or when said King himself plundered it from the Roman See, or when that See similarly arrogated it to itself from the Conciliarity of the Church catholic, where it is properly received, in Chrismation, from the Most High -- Who rules in the kingdoms of men, though His own Kingdom is not of this world -- and where it is properly ordered, in its various ranks, by the Apostles and their successors, who themselves were ordained to this task by that same Lord of Lords and King of Kings, to whom is due and given all power and authority in heaven and earth, because He, the Faithful One, was obedient unto death, and by His obedience and Death conquered death, being raised from the dead by the Father and exalted to His right hand, far above all principalities and powers, from whence He rules until He has put all things under His feet.

    But that was a little too far for this commentary, I think. :P

    ReplyDelete

Hi! Feel free to comment. However, I was getting posts from different Anonymous people, and it's difficult to know who is who so I can keep the conversation straight in my head. So I'm requesting that you please bear with my weakness, and identify yourself. Even if you want to use a different name than your real name -- that's fine. But give yourself a handle for me, please. :) Thanks...