What Did the Founders Think of Democracy and Electoral College?

Numerous Democrats -- including President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz – claimed that Donald Trump would destroy democracy if he were elected. Republicans, on the other hand, claimed that Trump needed to be elected to save democracy from the Democrats.

Mark Levin, sometimes known as “The Great One,” is an expert on the U.S. Constitution, and he says that we need to remind Americans that we do not have a democracy in the United States. He said, “[Our Founding Father] didn’t support democracy; they supported republicanism. The wise men who wrote the Constitution created a democratic republic, not a democracy. 

The staff at Blaze Media transcribed some of the information from a video where Levin discussed the work of the Founding Fathers. I encourage you to watch the video, but at least check out these comments by Levin as reported by Blaze:

“Democracy means factions can take over or a majority can be tyrannical,” he says, adding that our Founders saw this in other countries and “didn’t want anything to do with it.”

“They wanted republicanism; they wanted checks in power,” he explains.

That’s why they enshrined certain principles in our Constitution.

That way, “you can’t have people vote away your rights,” says Levin. If “90% of them don’t think you should have the right to bear arms, that’s too damn bad.”

The fact that our forefathers foresaw the inevitable issues with a true democracy and created our brilliant system proves that “they were geniuses.”

Their installation of the Electoral College was equally brilliant.

Even though we see people like Tim Walz advocating for the demolition of it, Levin knows the truth: It’s for our nation’s protection.

“You choose a president not through a direct election” but rather via an “Electoral College. Why?” asks Levin. “One person is the head of an entire branch; we can’t just leave it up to a popular vote” because then “the cities will choose the president.”

“In order to have a union and in order to make sure every aspect of the society was represented, they came up with this brilliant Electoral College,” he explains.

Because of this brilliant system of balance, “California doesn’t get to drown out Montana, Wyoming, [or] Idaho.”

“If you had a national popular vote, that’s what [California] would do,” says Levin.

A system in which “the president [is] chosen by the people through the Electoral College but not chosen by the legislature” was “unheard of” at the time. So was the idea of “staggered terms” and a “bicameral congress.”

“So the accumulation of power, the centralization of government is limited,” Levin explains.

For more wisdom straight from the mouth of Levin, check out this video. Two reminders we all need after the election: We are NOT a democracy, and the Electoral College is good | Blaze Media

What Is the Next Step for Trump?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns unequal or two-tier justice. During the Biden administration there has been one tier of justice for Democrats and their supporters and a second tier for Republicans – particularly Donald Trump – and their supporters.

Today we saw another result of the two-tier justice system when a New York state court in Manhattan found Trump guilty on all 34 counts in a “hush money” case. Mark Levin, in an article published at The Blaze, shed the following light on the topic. 

In Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court interceded in the Florida Supreme Court’s deliberation because that court was changing the Florida voting system on the fly, thereby violating the Equal Protection rights of Florida voters. The state court was establishing new standards for resolving a presidential election.

The Manhattan trial court has done worse in the farcical “hush-money” case. It has taken up a case in which there is exclusive federal jurisdiction (involving the Federal Election Campaign Act) despite the fact that the federal agencies with authority over enforcing federal campaign laws – the Federal Election Commission and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York – declined to bring charges.

I would strongly encourage his attorneys to seek an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based on Bush v. Gore.

Judge Juan Merchan is conflicted. His daughter, Loren, is raising tens of millions of dollars on behalf of her Democratic Party clients.

Collateral evidence has been abundant (and has no probative value).

The elements of the supposed federal offence were never articulated by the state or the court.

The imposition of a gag order on the defendant, who is the future Republican nominee for president, during a national campaign, raises all manner of First Amendment questions, problems, and concerns.

Moreover, this state court could easily have avoided influencing and interfering with the federal presidential election merely by setting a later time for the case, if the court actually believed it somehow had merit. After all, the state waited years to bring its case.

Therefore, there is not only a federal constitutional Equal Protection violation, in that this state trial court has purposefully interposed itself into the federal presidential election without authority or jurisdiction, but the court has also violated the federal constitutionally protected Due Process rights of the future Republican nominee for president.

Furthermore, the voters are to determine the federal election outcome without the interference of a state court attempting to influence the result. If President Trump is found guilty of any of the 34 charges, I would strongly encourage his attorneys to seek an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based, at least in significant part, on Bush v. Gore.

Levin is an attorney who worked during the Reagan administration as the chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is also a conservative radio and television host.