John Jay (December 12, 1745 - May 17, 1829) was the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from 1789 to 1794. In 1794, he was sent on a diplomatic mission to France. While in France, he was elected governor of New York State. He resigned from the Court, and served as governor of New York until 1800. President John Adams then re-nominated him to the court; the Senate quickly confirmed him, but he declined, citing his own poor health and the court's lack of "the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government." Jay was also the fifth President of the Continental Congress, and thus the leader of what was to become the United States, from December 10, 1778, until September 27, 1779. He was preceded in office by Henry Laurens and succeeded by Samuel Huntington. Jay did not attend the Constitutional Convention, but contributed five essays to what later became the Federalist Papers.

A favorite statement of his, made on several occasions in both public speeches and his writings was:

Those who own the country ought to govern it.

* Do you agree with this American Founding father?

* If you do agree, what constitutes “ownership of the country”?

* Is a person or persons with the greatest taxable incomes (say $50 million dollars or more) an “owner” and those who earn less not an “owner” and should not govern?

* Is it every American who owns a house or land outright, without a mortgage (for, if they have a mortgage, they are in reality only occupying the property that is actually owned by the bank or lending institution) an “owner” and those who rent not “owners” and should not govern?

* Are American citizens who earn only the Federal-mandated minimum wage those who are not “owners” and should not govern?

This is a moot point. The governance of the United States is already controlled by the "owners."

By "owners" I mean large corporate interests, including media conglomerates. These interests are not exclusively, maybe not predominantly American.

We live in a type of oligarchic rule with "manufactured consent." What the US public gets to see on TV and read in newspapers (those few who do read newspapers) is more a diversion than the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by BabySupine:
This is a moot point. The governance of the United States is already controlled by the "owners."

By "owners" I mean large corporate interests, including media conglomerates. These interests are not exclusively, maybe not predominantly American.

We live in a type of oligarchic rule with "manufactured consent." What the US public gets to see on TV and read in newspapers (those few who do read newspapers) is more a diversion than the truth.

In that case, should we abandon the practice of holding elections, voting, etc. and merely allow those "large corporate interests" you cite to create all laws and arrest and punish all who violate them, without troubling ourselves with the expensive pretense of federal, state, county, city or town government?

It would save us tax money.

That's why we're a republic and not a democracy.

The majority grossly outnumber the "owners", and if we were a democracy, they'd be irrelevant, even to the point of losing what they own should the majority want it.

So, they were at an advantage from the start, as they were the ones in Philadelphia, not the guy who was on the front lines during the Revolution.

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by BabySupine:
This is a moot point. The governance of the United States is already controlled by the "owners."

By "owners" I mean large corporate interests, including media conglomerates. These interests are not exclusively, maybe not predominantly American.

We live in a type of oligarchic rule with "manufactured consent." What the US public gets to see on TV and read in newspapers (those few who do read newspapers) is more a diversion than the truth.

In that case, should we abandon the practice of holding elections, voting, etc. and merely allow those "large corporate interests" you cite to create all laws and arrest and punish all who violate them, without troubling ourselves with the expensive pretense of federal, state, county, city or town government?

It would save us tax money.

Oh, but it's so much more peaceful the way things are run now. Ever see the movie "They Live!" with Roddy Piper?

john adams was against giving the vote to men who didn't own property because he could foresee it leading to the vote being given to women and to young people


basically what I'm saying here is that the founding fathers were all rich white men and they looked out for their interests first

quote:

Originally posted by liberal90:
john adams was against giving the vote to men who didn't own property because he could foresee it leading to the vote being given to women and to young people


basically what I'm saying here is that the founding fathers were all rich white men and they looked out for their interests first

Rich white men? or rich white foreigners creating a new world? And doesn't it seem odd that they would protect that which they founded, even if it was grossly wrong in how they treated humans of more than just one race?

We, those of us who participate in the voting process, take ownership of our country when we vote. Just because that vote does not go the way you wanted it to go does not mean that you do not have ownership.

All true Democracies, where direct votes by the populace determine policy and law, have decayed to the point of uselessness when the plebiscite discovers that they can vote themselves benefits without raising the taxes to provide for them. Someone once called it the "Bread and circuses syndrome."

When this country was established, I'm willing to guess that many of our forefathers were aware of this tendency. They probably believed that those with the financial stakes should be the ones to make the decisions on how their capital should be risked.

That's why our forefathers decided to form a Republic and a Representative Democracy.

The House of Representatives is sometimes called "The people's house" since Representatives are allocated by population. They were to represent the interests of the people within their particular district, and responsible to them.

All spending bills originate in the House. This stricture is designed as a check on the power of smaller states to determine how the Republic spends the taxes collected. The danger however (as noted above) is that the people could try to vote themselves "Bread and Circuses."

The Senate is designed to be the legislative check on the House since smaller states are equally represented there, nullifying the advantage that states with large populations have in the House. That's why Senators were originally appointed by the governments of the individual states, vice by popular election. They were supposed to be representing the interests of their State vice the interests of individual voters.

The decisions to limit the vote to landowners, and then just white males in general, were considered reasonable and enlightened at the time those decisions were made. Please note the emphasis.

As schools of thought changed over time, the arguments that led to those decisions were readdressed, and the decisions on who was allowed to vote were updated based on the beliefs of THAT time. Again, note the emphasis.

Examining the decisions our forefathers made when creating the Constitution and any subsequent laws, CANNOT be accurately discussed or analyzed without putting those decisions into the context of the body of knowledge, and schools of thought at the time those decisions were made, and laws implemented.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny_B:
All true Democracies, where direct votes by the populace determine policy and law, have decayed to the point of uselessness when the plebiscite discovers that they can vote themselves benefits without raising the taxes to provide for them. Someone once called it the "Bread and circuses syndrome."

When this country was established, I'm willing to guess that many of our forefathers were aware of this tendency. They probably believed that those with the financial stakes should be the ones to make the decisions on how their capital should be risked.

That's why our forefathers decided to form a Republic and a Representative Democracy.

The House of Representatives is sometimes called "The people's house" since Representatives are allocated by population. They were to represent the interests of the people within their particular district, and responsible to them.

All spending bills originate in the House. This stricture is designed as a check on the power of smaller states to determine how the Republic spends the taxes collected. The danger however (as noted above) is that the people could try to vote themselves "Bread and Circuses."

The Senate is designed to be the legislative check on the House since smaller states are equally represented there, nullifying the advantage that states with large populations have in the House. That's why Senators were originally appointed by the governments of the individual states, vice by popular election. They were supposed to be representing the interests of their State vice the interests of individual voters.

The decisions to limit the vote to landowners, and then just white males in general, were considered reasonable and enlightened at the time those decisions were made. Please note the emphasis.

As schools of thought changed over time, the arguments that led to those decisions were readdressed, and the decisions on who was allowed to vote were updated based on the beliefs of THAT time. Again, note the emphasis.

Examining the decisions our forefathers made when creating the Constitution and any subsequent laws, CANNOT be accurately discussed or analyzed without putting those decisions into the context of the body of knowledge, and schools of thought at the time those decisions were made, and laws implemented.

The system as designed by the originators worked fairly well until the Senate was changed from being appointed to being elected. That changed the dynamics as the Senate then became no different from the House and there was, and still is, no check on the passions of the moment.

However, that's a done deal and is not likely to change back at this point. And, the case can be made that America's rise to prominence really began when back-room politicking was removed from the Senate, so how that affected the future is debateable.

What we have now is what we have and that has to be our starting point for discussion.

In reality, we all can find things we don't like about how our government operates and the things it does, but it is not yet totally divorced from the will of The People. The "owners" are still us and we still control it, whether we want to believe that or not. As someone above mentioned, we once again establish our ownership every time we step into the polling booth and, via that, WE direct what government does.

I am among those who believe our political, economic and media systems are being manipulated by those who favor the corporatization of America and those who support globalization. To me, it is not a right/left issue as both sides are full of such people. It irritates me, as an owner, to see my nation being mishandled by those in positions of power and influence who I don't think have the best interests of this country at heart.

However I may feel about that, it's obvious to me that mine is a minority position among the rest of the "owners." My fellow citizens have consistantly voted into power those who support the goals of the corporatist's and globalist's. I believe they do that with at least a vague understanding of what they're doing. I do NOT believe I am any smarter than anyone ele and agree with Jefferson that our People will ultimately make the right decisions, even if I think them wrong.

For our democracy to work, we must all bow to the Will of The People, even if we don't like it, or democracy in this country will fail. Any course of action beyond speaking out and working within the system to affect the changes we'd like to see would necessarily require supplanting the Will of The People with our own and that runs counter to the precepts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

In the end, where America is today and what it does, is because WE the owners want it that way. Not ME, the owner, but WE the owners. The Will of The People has been heard and it behooves us all to accept that, if we love democracy.

quote:

Those who own the country ought to govern it

No, I do not agree, although it was a common practice during the early history of the country. John Jay was from New York, and in that state, in order to be qualified to vote, you had to be a "Freeholder" ... own property worth forty shillings or the equivalent in rents. This wasn't exactly arduous, and scarcely qualified you as "wealthy", but it did restrict the franchise ... seven of the original thirteen colonies has property requirements at ratification, and the last state to have them, North Carolina, didn't finally extend suffrage to all free white males until 1856.

But the trend is clearly towards expanding the right to vote ... we never once took a step back, with the exception of Reconstruction and Jim Crow, the origin of "states rights" ... since under the Constitution,

quote:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

So the states set the requirements for who was eligible, based on who they considered eligible to elect their lower state house.

The property requirement was completely abandoned before the civil war [as were earlier bars because of religion ... some colonies did not allow Catholics, Jews, or Quakers to vote], bars on account of race were lifted after the Civil War, women were granted the vote in 1920, eighteen year olds in 1972 [the same year the poll tax was abolished]. The most recent addition was the residents of D.C.

Pretty clear that the trend in American government was contrary to John Jay's assertion.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny_B:
All true Democracies, where direct votes by the populace determine policy and law, have decayed to the point of uselessness when the plebiscite discovers that they can vote themselves benefits without raising the taxes to provide for them. Someone once called it the "Bread and circuses syndrome."

-------------------
"Bread and circuses" has come to fruition in our Republic. Except the "populace" with the power to vote themselves benefits without raising (their own) taxes consists of two groups - large corporate "citizens" and the lawmakers.

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:
Pretty clear that the trend in American government was contrary to John Jay's assertion.

I don't agree with a lot of your posts, but that was excellent. Nice counter.

quote:

Originally posted by BabySupine: This is a moot point. The governance of the United States is already controlled by the "owners." By "owners" I mean large corporate interests, including media conglomerates. These interests are not exclusively, maybe not predominantly American.

If you truly believe you, as the rest of us, do not influence outcomes in the nation, then I am sure you have and will stay home from the voting booths.

We have the greatest system in the world. The best military in the world. The best health care, the best everything. We are just going through some hard times thats all. In a few years everything will work itself out and we can get back to our normal way of living life.

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney: "Bread and circuses" has come to fruition in our Republic. Except the "populace" with the power to vote themselves benefits without raising (their own) taxes consists of two groups - large corporate "citizens" and the lawmakers.

You ignore some of the worst, when it comes to severe conflicts of interest: those who have a vote that influences who is selected, handout monger or fiscally responsible polytishun, even though the voter pays little tax or, maybe, is a direct recipient instead of payor of tax, through the earned income credit. Until such people are net contributors to tax coffers, they should not be allowed to vote.

And another group that gets nice bennies without earning them is unions, and the worst are, of course, the unions representing the federal employees: the only significant growth sector for unions is the non-value-adding bureaucracies.

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:

quote:

Originally posted by nurse_attorney: "Bread and circuses" has come to fruition in our Republic. Except the "populace" with the power to vote themselves benefits without raising (their own) taxes consists of two groups - large corporate "citizens" and the lawmakers.

You ignore some of the worst, when it comes to severe conflicts of interest: those who have a vote that influences who is selected, handout monger or fiscally responsible polytishun, even though the voter pays little tax or, maybe, is a direct recipient instead of payor of tax, through the earned income credit. Until such people are net contributors to tax coffers, they should not be allowed to vote.

And another group that gets nice bennies without earning them is unions , and the worst are, of course, the unions representing the federal employees: the only significant growth sector for unions is the non-value-adding bureaucracies.

If you don't think persuading management skinflints to pony up wages and benefits is hard work, you ought to try it yourself sometime. You really are the compleat Tory, Major.

quote:

Originally posted by mcgreer:
That's why we're a republic and not a democracy.

The majority grossly outnumber the "owners", and if we were a democracy, they'd be irrelevant, even to the point of losing what they own should the majority want it.

So, they were at an advantage from the start, as they were the ones in Philadelphia, not the guy who was on the front lines during the Revolution.

Nice idea but to exactly true.
Just so everyone knows, a REPUBLIC IS A DEMOCRACY. It's just not a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. It is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. We have chosen to elect REPRESENTATIVES to represent us in making laws for our town, state (or commonwealth), and nation. That doesn't mean that it's not a government of the people. It might be a broken government of the people, but it still is one none the less.

So what possessed you to resurrect a 3 year old thread?

quote:

Originally posted by TiocfaidhArLa:
So what possessed you to resurrect a 3 year old thread?

4 years, but who's counting...

Posted Sat 07 June 2008 08:51 PM

"Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the Constitution of his country. ... By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them." - United States Founding Father, John Jay

After reading the constitution, we learn the country is not "owned" by the wealthy.

Please refrain from bumping up ancient threads.

Closing.