Well the flaw in what you said is that within the rules of the consituition, we have majority rules. Look at all the BS going on in the senate and the house, right now the Dems have the majority so they rule.

I voted yes, but I also assumed(I know, I know) there would be some kind of a frame work, ie the consituition. Even it though is open for interpetation, and the Supreme court does the interpetation with majority rules.

I was more looking at it as getting the people vote versus the politicians vote. I do not in anyway believe that 90% of the politicians vote what they believe is right for me. They vote for what serves them the best, that is getting re elected and grabbing more power.

One major flaw in the constituition is that it is not a living document, when it was written things were different than today. It can be changed yes, but the effort is so extreme, by the time you could get an amendment through it probably would be outdated.

Not necessarily.

A large percentage, up to 40% of homeowners are upside-down on their home's value, when factoring in their unpaid mortgage balance. Which using one translation, means they owe more than the home is worth.

Since a banking institution somewhere actually owns more of the property cashwise, than the occupants, I don't their stake as significant as landowners - since they don't actually own it.

According to Thomas J. Stanley, PhD, the median net worth of the 115 million households in America, after deducting their equity in cars and home if any is a paltry $34K. There's just not a lot of skin in the game, when you get down to the bare bone basics of the median individual's net worth.

This has somewhat been exposed in how an individual without announcing his plan for America got elected using a decidedly populist, empty slogan or two, to the highest office in the land. The country is being ruled by this one individual and his affiliated one party rule, and that party is not following majority opinion on almost any subject. In fact, they are creating law on subjects where OVER 70%+ oppose them.

Given these facts, at this time in our country's history, I'm afraid that majority "mob-rule" would serve our country well, it seems to me.

If the bank owns your house, should the bank get your vote?

Perfect...hope you don't mind if I steal that from time to time. :D

Well, if that's true, we can see how we ended up in the one-party rule we've got in this country.

In addition, only 52% of taxpayers pay any Federal income tax whatsoever, you can see where this thing's going.... Right down the cr_pper.........

Barack pointing out those responsible in banking/finance: Dodd & Frank
 

Sure, until the other, larger mob comes to your house....

Many folks might not own land, but a significant portion of them own weapons. Mob rule... be careful what you ask for;)

The meager 26% scares nobody.
 

Be careful what you wish for.;)

What is "The meager 26%" of which you speak?

I have lived in a country of direct representation. One person, one vote, no checks and balances. It's a total screw up. It always was and unfortunately always will be. The founders of the USA were way more intelligent than most realize and Americans screw up the constitution at their peril.

- Pete.

This thread continues to reinforce my belief that a constitutional republic is the only form of wise governance.

Big time.

One of the most intelligent founding fathers, Jefferson, recommended rewriting the constitution ever 20 years. He may have had a point.

You should have been here in 1790

"When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier."

1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.


1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.


1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
1860
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.

Are you suggesting that only those who pay net taxes should vote? I'm all for that. When you don't do enough to pay taxes then you are asking everyone else to give you money and you want to tell them what to do. Certain restrictions would apply, but they be less complex than the tax code is now.

The bank does not own your house- a group of unknown investors owns your debt/house- and many of them are not citizens.
And besides- unless you declare bankruptcy- the bank can and will attempt to collect the debt.