Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -
Refresh  
OpEdNews Op Eds

U.S. Constitution: Help or Hindrance?

By       Message John Spritzler     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H4 10/11/17

- Advertisement -

Even if the U.S. Constitution were obeyed 100%, it would not prevent some people from becoming enormously rich compared to most others. It would not stop our society from being one in which money is power. It would not prevent a very wealthy upper class from having far more power--over both the private sector and the government--than ordinary people have, despite the fact that ordinary people have "one man one vote" and the rights in the Bill of Rights. It would not, therefore, prevent class inequality. And class inequality is the root of our worst problems.

As is acknowledged by academics who study the question rigorously and even by the business press, the United States presently is an oligarchy (or plutocracy--same idea), not a republic or a democracy. In other words a small number of very rich people make the important government decisions and ordinary people have virtually no say in the matter either directly or even indirectly by means of representatives that truly represent them (as some people say would be the case in a republic).

This is the conclusion of a widely cited academic paper reporting on a study with an enormous data base, online here and also here(Business Insider: "Major Study Finds the US is an Oligarchy") and here (TPM: "Princeton Study: US No Longer an Actual Democracy") and here (BBC: "Study: US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy"). Additional proof is provided here.

Some people say that yes, this is the case today, and it is the source of many of our worst problems, including Orwellian wars of social control based on lies (wars that also enrich the plutocracy) and much suffering by the many for the benefit of the few. In order to make things right, they say, we need to make things be the way the U.S. Constitution, which is unfortunately being ignored, says things should be: a "representative democracy" otherwise known as a republic.

- Advertisement -

The problem with this "solution" is that it doesn't eliminate the root of the problem, which is class inequality. Class inequality in our present United States takes the form of some people being very rich compared to most people, and our society being one in which money is power. Billionaires thus have the power to shape society by their values (inequality and using divide-and-rule to keep things unequal); regular people do not have the power to shape things by their contrary values. The power of money makes one-man-one-vote a meaningless right. Big Money dominates the decisions the government makes. Elected representatives are influenced by Big Money, not their constituents. This is a fact that is plain to see.

Why is it that the poorest people do the hardest work and enjoy the benefits of socially produced wealth the least, while the richest do the easiest work in great luxury or do no work at all, and enjoy the lion's share of these benefits? It's not because poor people don't have "one man one vote"; it's not because poor people are not "represented" by congressmen and senators the way that the Constitution spells out (for what it's worth, which obviously is not very much!); it's not because poor people lack the rights of free speech and freedom to assemble, etc., in the Bill of Rights. It's because these rights count for diddly-squat in any contest between people with billions of dollars versus people whose net worth (assets minus debts) is close to zero--less than zero for one in five families!

Why is it that when the rich want to wage a war, they do it regardless of the majority of the population opposing it? This was the case with the Vietnam War, which went on until the refusal of GIs to fight it forced Nixon to withdraw in 1975, seven bloody years after a majority of Americans came to oppose that war. The billionaires can do this because when they want to do something, their Big Money gives them the power to do it regardless of the fact that the vast majority who disagree have all of the useless rights in the Constitution.

- Advertisement -

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the (legally ignorable) Declaration of Independence that prohibits some people from being extremely rich and, thus, having far more actual power (over government decisions as well as private-sector decisions) than other people despite the fact that everybody gets only one vote.

In fact, the Constitution protects the right of the very rich to remain very rich. Here is how it does it, as reported by PBS:

"The Fifth Amendment protects the right to private property in two ways. First, it states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without 'due process of law,' or fair procedures. In addition, it sets limits on the traditional practice of eminent domain, such as when the government takes private property to build a public road. Under the Fifth Amendment, such takings must be for a 'public use' and require 'just compensation' at market value for the property seized. But in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court interpreted public use broadly to include a 'public purpose' of economic development that might directly benefit private parties. In response, many state legislatures passed laws limiting the scope of eminent domain for public use."

The reason that the rich can ignore the Constitution when they feel like it is because they are powerful, and nothing in the Constitution prevented them from becoming powerful or prevents them from being MUCH more powerful than regular people. Honoring the Constitution to the letter would be, at most, a nuisance and an inconvenience for the rich. It would not prevent billionaires from running the show; it would simply mean they would have to be more careful and creative about how they used the power of money to get what they wanted. (A wonderfully insightful cartoon shows some corporate managers sitting around a table and one of them says to the other, "These new regulations will fundamentally change the way we get around them.")

The U.S. Constitution HELPS the Rich Dominate the Rest of US

Indeed the U.S. Constitution, far from being an impediment to the power of the rich, makes the U.S. government one that is extremely useful for the rich to dominate the entire American population. How so? It does this by making the government one that is based on the authoritarian principle. The authoritarian principle says that one must obey the highest body of government no matter what. In our republic (which is what the United States Constitution makes the United States) when the members of Congress write a law and the President signs it, everybody in the United States must obey it. Ditto when the members of a state legislature write and the Governor signs a law, everybody in the state must obey it, no matter what.

- Advertisement -

The authoritarian principle (if the population accepts it as legitimate, which is unfortunately often the case) is a veritable "welcome mat" for rich people to dominate the entire population merely by using the power of their money to control a relatively small number of individuals who constitute the highest body of the government. (The authoritarian principle was also a "welcome mat" for the Bolshevik Party leaders to dominate the entire population of the Soviet Union by controlling--by hook or by crook--the relatively few people at the top of the Soviet government.) Oppressive ruling elites LOVE the authoritarian principle, and the U.S. Constitution is pure authoritarian principle!

Why do people accept the authoritarian principle? (They sometimes don't, as you can read about here.) In the United States a big part of the reason why people accept the authoritarian principle is that people have a misunderstanding about democracy (including representative government, a.k.a. republics). The misunderstanding is the false belief that there can exist today in the United States a democracy (or a republic, if you will, and now I'll just use the word "democracy" if you don't mind, OK?) of ALL the people. By a democracy of all the people I mean a system of government in which all conflicts and disagreements among the entire population of citizens are resolved peaceably by mutual agreements and compromises according to some agreed-upon method of decision-making (such as the principle of a majority vote of elected representatives) without the use of violence or even the credible threat of violence by either side when there is a conflict.

The fact is that there CANNOT exist today in the United States such a democracy of ALL the people, for the reason discussed in the following paragraphs. What purports to be a democracy of ALL the people is in fact a fake democracy that is really an oligarchy. The authoritarian principle derives its legitimacy from the idea that we really have a democracy of ALL the people, in which the laws written by the government reflect peacefully made mutual agreements and compromises among ALL Americans, and should therefore be obeyed.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

https://www.pdrboston.org

I am the editor of www.PDRBoston.org and www.NewDemocracyWorld.org, the author of No Rich and No Poor: The Populist Goal We CAN and Must Win, Divide and Rule: The "Left vs. Right" Trap, The People as Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Trump's Secret Weapon: Well-Intentioned Progressives

The Capitalist Big Lie about Human Nature

Beware of the Universal Basic Income

America's Liberal Establishment Enables White Nationalist Organizations to Recruit

Here's How the Ruling Class USES the Left

The U.S. Armed the Soviet Union During the 'Cold War'

Comments Image Post Article Comment

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

  • OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
  • Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
  • By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.
Connect with Facebook     Connect with Twitter            Register with Facebook     Register with Twitter

Comment:   

You can enter 2000 characters. To remove limit, please click here.

Please login or register. Afterwards, your comment will be published.
 
Username
Password

Forgot your password? Click here and we will send an email to the address you used when you registered.
First Name
Last Name

I am at least 16 years of age
(make sure username & password are filled in. Note that username must be an email address.)

4 people are discussing this page, with 7 comments  Post Comment


John Spritzler

Become a Fan
Author 79998

(Member since Jul 8, 2012), 4 fans, 23 articles, 3 quicklinks, 106 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

The U.S. Constitution is part of the problem, not the solution. It was written by rich and greedy people to protect their power over ordinary people and to protect and increase their wealth. This upper class has been brainwashing Americans to worship it and its government's constitution. It's time to remove the blinders from our eyes and make a truly equal and democratic society in which there cannot be a billionaire class ruling over the rest of us in a fake democracy.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:25:07 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13905 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

"It would not stop our society from being one in which money is power."

I disagree. Public financing of elections would probably keep the power with voters.

Submitted on Friday, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:42:43 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

John Spritzler

Become a Fan
Author 79998

(Member since Jul 8, 2012), 4 fans, 23 articles, 3 quicklinks, 106 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content
Do you really believe that public financing of elections would mean that a multi-billionaire owner of a controlling number of shares in a corporation would have no more influence over whether that corporation (a major employer in a region) leaves than, say, a hot dog vendor on a street corner? Do you really believe that? REALLY?

Submitted on Friday, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:23:56 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13905 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to John Spritzler:   New Content

If the people would vote smart they would have the representatives that would make leaving subject to rules and laws.

And perhaps there would be no multibillionaires anyway (with the right laws).

Submitted on Friday, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:10:28 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Daniel Geery

Become a Fan
Author 1198

(Member since Jul 9, 2009), 71 fans, 138 articles, 3149 quicklinks, 13025 comments, 179 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content
The question of course is how do we get there? Right now we can't even be assured that our votes are counted properly, in fact it's just the opposite as we recently saw in the primaries.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:14:40 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

gunnar kullenberg

Become a Fan
Author 500026

(Member since Sep 30, 2014), 6 fans, 854 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

...good article...

Many important points made..."worshiping constitution and 'founding fathers'" is not a good thing....

But here's where the article ditched itself:

"... the question of whether slavery should exist or be abolished, and that is why there was a violent civil war over the question..."

...false...not true.

There is another thing that people are worshiping and that is the union construct...when states or nations form "political unions" many bad things happen...it's hinted at here:

"...anti-federalists and friends of liberty..." -- ...and I applaud that...the "federal" is the "magic glue" that preserves (today, utterly unwarranted) power in the hands of the unworthy...and this is now threatening Life on Earth! -- It's got to end. -- The states must assert sovereignty and full independence -- the center must be eliminated. -- What happens after that is of course up to the individual states, but some form of voluntary, constructive form of cooperative arrangement would probably be seen as advantageous...but it must be voluntary.

Nobody threatens the US -- it is the US that has evolved into a criminal entity that threatens all, including its own citizens...Zero Legitimacy left

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:49:25 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

John Spritzler

Become a Fan
Author 79998

(Member since Jul 8, 2012), 4 fans, 23 articles, 3 quicklinks, 106 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to gunnar kullenberg:   New Content

I'm not sure if I understand the reason you think that my statement ("... the question of whether slavery should exist or be abolished, and that is why there was a violent civil war over the question...") is false. You say "...false...not true." and then start talking about the wrongness of the the "union construct."

I am guessing that your "not true" statement is meant to refute the idea that the origin of the Civil War was the conflict over slavery. I happen to think that the conflict over slavery was a huge factor in causing the Civil War (the confederate states' declarations of the reasons for their cessation say so explicitly) and we can debate that issue. But it is irrelevant to the point of my article and specifically the point in my article that the conflict over slavery could not be resolved peaceably by some supposed "democracy of all the peopled" process.

Let us agree for the sake of argument that the Civil War was not caused by the slavery conflict. Still, the question remains, would the anti-slavery and pro-slavery groups ever have come to a mutual agreement peacefully by some "democracy of all the people" decision rule? I doubt it very much. I think you would have a hard time making a persuasive case that such a peaceful resolution was possible, regardless of what the cause of the Civil War was. My statement that slavery in the U.S. was, what I call in my article, a "fundamental" conflict, one that could not be resolved by a peaceful "democracy of all the people" holds true.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:02:54 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment