Constutional Confusion, Republicans and Primaries

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It’s frustrating, but I’m looking on the bright side.  With every opposition comes opportunity.

The challenge to Utah’s caucus is an opportunity to teach people what they didn’t learn in school:  that the United States Constitution and the Founders that wrote it did not have in mind that this nation should be a democracy.  They created a republic and it is guaranteed to every state in Article IV.  Read it.

I don’t wish to embarrass people when they are simply poorly informed, and that’s not my intent, but saving liberty and my grandchildren’s prospects of a secure future are on the line.  So we need to get this right.

Former Salt Lake County Republican Chairman Tiani Coleman wrote not one – but two – opinion pieces, first in the Salt Lake Tribune on May 25, and then in the Deseret News on May 28th.

I suppose the DesNews was having a tough time finding original material. Or perhaps the merger between the management of the two outlets is going full circle and they’re now copying each other to save on costs?

I must digress for a paragraph. Actually, it makes great sense, because media outlets are the real winner if the caucus goes away and Primaries replace them. Real winners – big bucks that they are missing without them. Keep that in mind, friends.

Tiani Coleman
Tiani Coleman

Tiani, and others who agree with her that the caucus is a relic that needs to be tossed aside with other worn out toys in the attic, needs to disclose her basic confusion about what political platform she supports in the first place.

Back in 2004, the one time I had any association with her, and even that was only by conference call, she was working with GOP operatives that completely undermined and nearly defeated Amendment 3, the marriage amendment, a keystone platform issue that distinguishes it from the Democratic platform.

She had virtually come from out of the woodwork with an agenda that was ill-conceived. She was part of a group that attempted to derail the efforts of the longstanding faithful that had helped draft the amendment and that had fought so hard for it during the legislative process. They were trusted and knew what they were doing. But none of them knew who Tiani was.

Because of that group, posing as if they were there to save the amendment from defeat, we had to jump through hoops to defeat the misinformation coming from them and Doug Wright on KSL. Because of Doug Wright’s ignorance, I had to create a TV ad and we recruited the Osmond Family to be in the commercial to save the thing from disaster.

Although Tiani was once Republican (apparently in name only?), she left the party and then supported a Democratic candidate against Congressman Jason Chaffetz.

The two parties have two very separate and distinctive platforms. So which platform does she support? Apparently she had a difficult time deciding then. Now she wants no parties. And she’s an independent. She wants independents to petition to run on a ballot?

It’s true the Founders didn’t want political factions either, but Tiani does a complete 180 from the remainder of what the Founders did want. And that’s where her ignorance enters.

Now she’s besmirching George Washington by advocating eliminating the most constitutionally correct and grassroots election system still standing.

But this confusion is not exclusive to Tiani Coleman. We have probably three generations now that were never taught any differently from Tiani. She’s most likely a product of the public school system – or perhaps a private school or charter school that takes the required tests and assessments that drive the curriculum and text books to the same destination-indoctrinating young people into believing the U.S. was – and is – a democracy.

It’s the same school system that has been doing such a poor job of teaching students something so very basic as to ask “What form of government does the U.S. have?” and moreover, to actually get the answer right.

George WashingtonGoing back in time:  The only popular vote the Founders wanted was for the US House – the people’s house.  It wasn’t a democratic vote – it was a popular vote to elect a representative.

For presidential elections, they wanted only electors that were the sum of the states’ federal delegations (that would be 535 people today.   The votes were tallied and each state got one vote among the top five.  The top two winners became the president and vice president. That was a true electoral college. That went out the window with the 12th Amendment. And that was the beginning of the gradual turn toward eventually making all three branches of government elected by popular vote – the closest we get to a democracy. By so doing, it threw things well out of balance.

The Founders also wanted only state legislatures to elect their US Senators because they represented the states.

Elitist?  No, smart – and balanced.

They hated democracy and knew the history of democracy: that the people would eventually vote themselves largess from the treasury until it was bankrupt.

Isn’t this precisely what’s happening today? The increased numbers who now depend on government for their income and welfare, are voting themselves more of it, and it’s bringing our nation down.

The Founders created a republic with a balance of power, not only between the four branches of government (judiciary, executive, legislative and states), but ingeniously they also wove it into the election system.

Was this an exclusionary and unfair election process to only allow a few hundred people get to elect a president or only a hundred or more to elect US Senators in each state?

No, because they understood wisely that in a democracy, as Tiani and others prefer, not everyone has the time to do all the research that our elected representatives have committed to set aside time to do. Likewise, we trust them to do their job better than we can.

And they wanted the group of people to elect the person that had direct representation over that particular body. The president wasn’t the people’s president. The president presided over the executive branch only – the cabinet members, limited to defense, state and treasury. Money, diplomacy and security. Period.

They wanted the U.S. Senate to be accountable to their states and to represent them, not the people.

That is hardly elitist. It’s simply practical and limited government.

But the “Buy My Vote” crowd that wants to destroy what little remains of any balance in elections calls us the elitists when they know darn well they are the ones who will stand to gain big bucks from the costly primaries and the media buys they’ll get to make.

The Founders foresaw this manipulation and guaranteed a republic, not a democracy.

But look at it closely: Not a single election is really a pure democratic election.  One man-one vote isn’t really democracy at all. That’s simply a fallacy.  A democracy is one in which the people control, without representation.  The caucus provides a democratic voice at the ground, grassroots level:  in the neighborhood meeting.  In that setting, the neighbors are democracy in action. They discuss together but then their vote ends democracy by electing representatives who will be their voice at the convention.

Name one election in which we do not elect a representative. But the popular vote, more correctly stated, does come closest to resembling and producing the negative effects of democracy.

Never forget what the Founders knew:  Democracies have volatile deaths. We’re in the middle of that death – by a thousand stabs – right now. Tiani, and others who call themselves erroneously “republican,” defies logic. They are advocating for the elimination of the one remaining constitutionally republican election system in this nation, one that every state at one time had and should restore again today, not the reverse.

Eliminating that republican election system is yet one more stab at the death of our republic.

That’s why I’m a Republican, not a Democrat.

That’s why I support the caucus.