Our government has become a bit ugly in the manner by which it no longer seems to find it necessary to hide alliances with third party masters who make all of the high level decisions outside the perview of the electing public. (A trillion dollar bank bonanza being the latest example)

I have given thought to the idea that one impediment working against our ability to follow the spirit of Franklin’s post convention posit, “We have a republic, if we can keep it.” is the small number of representatives who occupy seats in our government, as the chicanery of collusion is aided by smaller groups.

Unfortunately, our no-longer-free press does not comprise a small group, and has nonetheless been co-opted with magnificent success by (naturally) the same third party “masters”.

If he were alive today, I don’t think Mr. Franklin would be very happy about our lot.

– Ron

Both the indifference and the “schizophrenia” are learned things, having been taught to our children in their schools. An example of the indifference is evidenced by the observation (empirically gleaned from the docile ask-no-questions youths of our time) that no person under the age of thirty will read more than three sentences of your (quite eloquent) essay.

I’m sorry to say,

Ron

It is a simple process, really.

It means undoing the first amendment, and adding another. This has been done before.

This new amendment would create a “State Religion” and makes all laws subservient to it.

And the “People” (House of Reps/Senate) would be the constitutional instrument for making all that happen/

All the rest of the mischief will follow. The Supreme court would be bound to “interpret law” by that new amendment, etc etc etc

The reason I state all this is not because I wish for this to happen. But because I think …. it is important to KNOW the dangers. And be extremely paranoid.

Editor’s Comment: Thanks for the additional comment. There have been several attempts to pass amendments to the Constitution – one of the most recent being the Equal Rights Amendment. A couple that come to mind are the efforts to propose a ban on flag burning and to declare that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Both have failed because the interest groups pushing them failed to get the necessary support in Congress. The proposed amendments never even made it to the States for ratification. Given what I know about the workings of Congress, it is significantly less likely that any attempt to modify Article 6 would succeed where these efforts have failed. I do agree that vigilance is necessary. The encroachment by the Executive branch poses a much more immediate challenge.

What if the majority of the citizens decide that the government of the United States should be a theocracy? The answer to this version is quite simple – they can’t

This was the argument by those that supported the fugitive slave repatriations, made explicit in the first constitution of 1787, and (“supported” at least in the eyes of the Slave Holders) by the bill of rights (10th amendment “State Rights”).

It took a constitutional amendment to change that view (the 13th). And take explicit references to Slavery OUT of the constitution. But it did happen.

Constitutions CAN be amended by the vote of the people. For Good and Bad as you may judge it to be.

And amendments CAN be annulled. Witness the annulment of the 18th amendment (hooch) by the 21st (hooch allowed).

This is the greater law of nature the intentions of which are ostensibly to allow “change for the better by debate and will of the people”. But with that responsibility also comes opportunity for great mischief.

If the 18th amendment can be annulled, why not the 1st, or any other ? Or all of them ?

If the majority of the people WANT a theocracy, they will get their Theocracy!

And, as far am I and You are concerned, lose the Brave New World based on the “Age of Reason” and “Rights of Man” as Thomas Paine Intended/Advocated, and Hamilton, Madison, Jay implemented.

SO.. let us not be complacent on that front. Mundane things like Demographics are KEY here.

And Vigilance is and has always been the Guardian of liberties. Hamilton’s Federalist #1.

Lets hope we do our parts to “fireproof” to the best of our abilities that which is truly important to us. Else the laws of nature say: We deserve to lose it.

Editor’s Comment: Thanks for the comment. The Federalist Papers focused on the dangers of the ‘tyranny of the majority’. It was an issue that particularly bothered Madison. The solution that the framers came up with – and one that has worked quite well over the years – makes it fairly difficult to amend the Constitution. A proposed amendment first has to pass both houses of Congress. It then moves to the States for ratification. The ratification process requires two-thirds of the State to approve any amendment before it becomes the law of the land. Madison realized that such a process would result in an extended debate and would make it very difficult for a passionate majority to work their will on the Constitution or the citizenry. The Connecticut compromise and the subsequent 13th Amendment is a very good example of how the process can work. The 18th and 21st Amendments show how a misstep can be rectified. Unlike other constitutions, ours has been amended very few times. The British constitution and that of California prove the dangers of making the process too easy. In politics, we make a distinction between what is possible and what is probable – Madison, Jay and Hamilton made that same distinction. Is it possible to turn the Unites States into a theocracy – sure. Is it probable – not at all. In fact, the possibility has diminished as the religious diversity of the country has increased.