The Rabbi
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2009
- 67,733
- 7,923
All of the deflections above reinforces the rightness of the OP.
The extreme wealth and influence of corporations and individuals threaten our country's very values.
Now that corps are 'person's, such is not so far away for unions and governments, and then Katie can't bar door.
The OP was a lie. Madison never made such a statement.
You've been had, fakey.
Naw, you are wrong, as usual.
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
James Madison, 1787 (during the Constitutional Convention)
Jake, you write I am wrong and then do nothing to show that.
/Fail.