A proposed amendment to the California Constitution to ban foreclosures

David A. Benson, a citizen of Sacramento, California, has proposed an amendment to the California Constitution that would outlaw foreclosures. The proposal has been cleared by the Secretary of State.

Irvine Home Address … 2372 SCHOLARSHIP Irvine, CA 92612

Resale Home Price …… $300,000

I tear my brain out endlessly,

searching for something that will never be.

No rest, never to expect something of this world,

'cause this world owes me nothing.


What you deserve is what you will get in the end

No handouts.

Vision of Disorder — Adelaide

The culture of housing entitlement in California has reached its ultimate extreme. People have come to believe they are entitled to free money from free housing and that everyone else should pay for it. The beliefs that spawn mental manure like this proposal warrant closer examination. The cultural pathology infecting California homeowners is truly remarkable. An exorcism is badly needed — and the market itself is working to banish those demons — perhaps proposals such as this are the demon's last gasp before the kool aid drains from its veins.

This is no joke, someone has actually proposed the outlaw of foreclosures, mandated principal forgiveness, and other borrower perks and cloaked it as the birthright of all Californians. Let's carefully examine what this amendment says, and what would happen if it became law.

Foreclosure Modification Act

To the Honorable Kamala D. Harris Attorney General of the State of California

California Homeowners and I, the undersigned David A. Benson, a citizen of the State of California and located at PO Box 292452 Sacramento, CA 95829


Temporary Numbers Fax 916-685-0385

e-mail: protect.our.home.now@gmail.com

Do hereby request a Title and Summary for the attached proposed initiative constitutional amendment.

JUN 07, 2011


This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by amending a article and by adding sections thereto of the Article 1 dealing with Declaration Of Rights.



SECTION 1. Title

This act shall be known as the “Foreclosure Modification Act”.

SECTION 2. Findings and Declarations

The People of the State of California hereby find and declare that:

(a) Real estate lending institutions have failed to provide a simple method of loan modification and foreclosure prevention.

Loan modifications are not an entitlement and banks don’t want to make them one. Loan modifications should not become an entitlement, and foreclosures should not be prevented. Foreclosures are essential to the economic recovery. Just because someone declares something to be a problem doesn't mean that it really is.

(b) That lending institutions, loan servicers, mortgagees, trustees and beneficiaries of home loans are not taking into account the devalue that has occurred in property values and adjusted loans accordingly in loan modifications.

Lenders should not care about the value of the borrower's collateral except to the degree their collateral is protected. If lenders were forced to write down principal if values declined, how do you think lenders would react? The first thing that would happen is that down payment requirements would go sky high. If 50% declines are possible, and if lenders had to reduce principal to match, no lender would ever loan more that 50% of the value of the loan.

Of course, we could always look to the US government to continue to provide those 96.5% FHA loans and expect taxpayers to eat the losses when the inevitable write downs came. If you think the 1.15% FHA insurance premium is high now, wait until the actuaries factor in the cost of California principal reductions.

Basically, if principal reductions were mandated, all home loan lending in California would cease. No private lender wants to give away their money, and the government can't afford to.

This act should be retitled as the “Loan Owner Giveaway Act.”

(c) That borrowers would continue to make payments on notes held by these lending institutions, loan servicers, mortgagees, trustees and beneficiaries, if given the opportunity.

If the above statement were true, why do 25% of loan owners walk away through strategic default? If given the opportunity borrowers will take free money and reduced payments, and if not given that, they will simply walk away.

(d) That foreclosure has become a method of increasing a lending institution, loan servicer, mortgagee, trustee and beneficiary's bottom line and profits by turning borrowers out of their homes.

I profit from foreclosures, I do so at the expense of lenders. No lender is making money from the auction site. That is where their huge losses are finally realized. The above statement is complete nonsense. Further, so what if people are making money from foreclosure auctions. The auctions would not be occurring if borrowers continued making their loan payments.

(e) That currently it is a time consuming and sometimes costly process that is required by lending institutions, loan servicers, mortgagees, trustees and beneficiaries for refinancing

of a home loan in order that a borrower may take advantage of lower interest rates.

Lenders don't want borrowers to take advantage of lower interest rates. Lenders want to make money by charging higher interest rates. So now low interest rate refinancing is an entitlement?

I suppose the free-money cash-out refinances at ever-decreasing interest rates are an entitlement too, right?

How are the statements above identified as problems? Why don't we give everyone free houses and free money for life? That's basically what this amendment would accomplish.

SECTION 3. Purposes and Intent

The People of the State of California do hereby enact this measure to:

(a) Assist all citizens of this great State of California in the purchase and ownership of a home or property and that associated therewith.

This is not assistance of the citizens of a great state. What he is describing is theft, and it will not make our citizens great, it will make them entitled whiners.

(b) Make available principal reduction as well as but not limited to interest rate reduction a method of aiding borrowers in retaining their home or properly.

If this were to come to pass, any borrower who behaved in any prudent way is a fool. Everyone would be strongly encouraged to borrow as much money as possible against their homes, then when prices crash petition for their mandated principal forgiveness. At that point, anyone who isn't gaming the system is a fool.

(c) Prevent the lost of one's personal home property by foreclosure or other means due to hardship or illness or other calamity.

So when the calamity is self inflicted — which the vast majority in California are — the intent is to eliminate the consequences for unwise behavior and give foolish borrowers a pass. Moral hazard will be enshrined into the California constitution.

(e) Make refinance for a lower interest rate and payment simple, easy and available to all homeowners.

Who exactly is going to provide this money? Given the terms dictated by this amendment, no private lender will be stupid enough to extend these loans. Will the government do it? Or will the government be asked to provide loan guarantees and take the risk?

SECTION 4. Article 1 of the California Constitution is amended, with the addition of SEC. 31 to read:

It is a fundamental right for every Californian to purchase and own a home and real property. As such no township, city, county, municipality, corporate entity, the Legislature or agents thereof shall infringe on this given right of the State of California to its citizens. In that this right is granted to the citizens of California, the State and its agents (townships, cities, counties, legislature and departments thereof) shall endeavor to assist and encourage the ownership of a personal home or property and such as related to same.

Home ownership as a fundamental right? An entitlement? If it is, I want a beachfront home in Laguna. It's my right as a California citizen, right? All I have to do is get a loan to get through the door, then it's mine.

No citizen of the State of California shall lose or have that deemed as their personal home or property taken by foreclosure or any instrument thereof or similar to.

No citizen of the State of California will ever be given a home loan. Why would any lender fund a loan they knew they could only get back if the borrower decided to pay them back? What happens when borrowers strategically default and decide to squat forever? Fear of foreclosure is essential to the operation of our real property system. Without it, borrowers have no incentive to borrow responsibly, and lenders have every reason not to loan at all.

In the event of non payment in the time defined by standard loan contracts, due to financial hardship or illness by the home or property borrower, then the lending institution, loan servicers, mortgagees, trustees and beneficiaries shall make every effort to assist California borrowers and in the event of a reduction of local property values of more then 10%, a reduction of principal to reflect the new value shall be used, as well as to reschedule payments and or reduce interest rates and or refinance without credit review of the loan in order to bring said loan current.

There are two positions you can take in finance: equity or debt. Equity gets to participate in the upside and the downside of the change in asset value. Debt is fixed, and debt positions do not participate in either the upside or the downside. This provision gives borrowers the best of both worlds and makes lenders eat a shit sandwich.

In addition any such loan issued for and secured by a home or property by any lending institutions, loan servicers, mortgagees, trustees and beneficiaries doing business in the State of California, shall be able to be refinanced without credit review or penalty at minimum cost, within 45 days of being requested, by the original loan borrower or home owner, provided said owner or borrower has maintained said loan for a period of no less than 3 years.

This provision shifts all interest rate risk onto the lender. If rates go up, the borrower gets the advantage of their mortgage being fixed at a low rate, but if rates go down, the borrower automatically gets the benefit of the lower rate even if they no longer qualify. Again the borrower is getting the best of both sets of terms, and the lender is being forced to endure the worst.

If lenders have to face both depreciation risk and interest rate risk, they will dramatically increase down payment requirements, and interest rates will go sky high — assuming lenders are willing to lend at all. The follow-up amendment to this one is to force lenders to loan money in California because otherwise they won't under the new terms.

All borrowers shall have the right and the ability to meet in person if desired, with an agent of the lending institutions, loan servicers, mortgagees, trustees and beneficiaries in order to facilitate any required review with said agent who will be authorized to make any changes in loan terms at that time.

To top it off, lenders must absorb some unnecessary servicing fees. I get the impression the guy who wrote this amendment wanted to see how bad he could make the deal for lenders. He succeeded.

This shall apply also to property taxes, fees and levies collected on a citizen's home by any township, city, county, municipality, political subdivision or agents thereof.

There goes the last time any home owner paid their HOA dues or property taxes. Why pay when they can't foreclose? To be nice?

These groups shall make every effort possible to assist the home owner in the payment of current or back property taxes or assessments, even to the extent of allowing payments on a weekly or monthly schedule at no additional cost or interest thereof, in order that the citizen may retain their personal home or properly. This does not prohibit those laws dealing with mechanics liens and lien laws, but is in addition to same.

This amendment is foolish on many levels, but it does reveal how pervasive the housing entitlement has become in California. If I were going to write an amendment as satire, I couldn't do it as well. This encompasses every bad idea of loan owner bailouts into one tome. Kudos for the satire. Condemnation for the serious attempt at expanding homeowner entitlements.

California Citizen Proposes Amendment Outlawing Foreclosures

08/02/2011 — By: Krista Franks

A Sacramento, California citizen has proposed an amendment to the California Constitution that would outlaw foreclosures.

Declaring that “real estate lending institutions have failed to provide a simple method of loan modification and foreclosure prevention,” David A. Benson’s Foreclosure Modification Act would require lenders to provide principal reductions and interest rate reductions to help borrowers keep their homes.

Benson asserts that loan servicers are “not taking into account the devalue that has occurred in property values,” and thus, his amendment would require lenders and servicers to offer refinancing options with lower interest rates to all homeowners. According to the amendment, any home loan “shall be able to be refinanced without credit review or penalty at minimum cost, within 45 days of being requested by the original loan borrower or home owner” given the borrower has maintained the loan for at least three years.

“It is a fundamental right for every Californian to purchase and own a home and real property,” the proposed amendment states. “As such no township, city, county, municipality, corporate entity, the Legislature or agents thereof shall infringe on this given right of the State of California to its citizens.”

The proposal, already cleared by the Secretary of State, now requires 807,615 signatures — 8 percent of the total votes cast in California’s 2010 gubernatorial election — in order to be listed on the ballot for California voters to consider.

Benson has until December 27 to collect the signatures.

A nonpartisan legislative analyst and the California governor’s director of finance say the amendment might conflict with the U.S. and California Constitutions and other federal laws, according to an article in the Central Valley Business Times.

It probably won't be too difficult to find 807,615 loan owners to sign up to get free money. I wouldn't be surprised to see this initiative get on the ballot. If it passes, hopefully the judges will write a scathing rebuke when they throw it out in court.

The school of hard knocks

Whenever I see a property with an address on Scholarship, I think about how the buyers were schooled by the market. Today's featured property is a huge loss on a Jamboree corridor condo.

The original buyers put 20% down on this condo, so both they and the bank shared the pain equally. It must suck to lose $107,400 of your own money and have your credit trashed.


This property is not available for sale via the MLS.

Please contact Shevy Akason, #01836707



Irvine House Address … 2372 SCHOLARSHIP Irvine, CA 92612

Resale House Price …… $300,000

Beds: 2

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 1037


Property Type: Residential, Condominium

Style: One Level, Other

Year Built: 2006

Community: Airport Area

County: Orange

MLS#: U11000507

Source: SoCalMLS

Status: Closed


Upgraded home offers 2 master bedrooms, 2 baths located on the third floor with open views. Home includes natural granite slab countertops & designer European-style cabinetry in kitchen and bathrooms, black Whirlpool appliances, hardwood flooring in kitchen and entry, and dual glazed energy efficient windows. Separate inside laundry room includes a full size washer & dryer. Two side by side assigned parking spaces in gated covered garage. The home is desirably located near the amenities which include pool, spa, fitness center, indoor basketball court, putting green, billiard room, tot lot, club house, business center, conference room, and more.


Proprietary IHB commentary and analysis

The North Korea towers are not the only condo complex to see massive losses. This unit sold for more than 40% off its peak purchase price. With transaction costs, the loss was nearly half of what was paid.

Resale Home Price …… $300,000

House Purchase Price … $535,000

House Purchase Date …. 2/24/2006

Net Gain (Loss) ………. ($253,000)

Percent Change ………. -47.3%

Annual Appreciation … -10.4%

Cost of Home Ownership


$300,000 ………. Asking Price

$10,500 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.53% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$289,500 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$63,087 ………. Income Requirement

$1,472 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$260 ………. Property Tax (@1.04%)

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$62 ………. Homeowners Insurance (@ 0.25%)

$333 ………. Private Mortgage Insurance

$390 ………. Homeowners Association Fees


$2,517 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$135 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$379 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment (Amortization)

$18 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$58 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves


$2,078 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands


$3,000 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$3,000 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$2,895 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$10,500 ………. Down Payment


$19,395 ………. Total Cash Costs

$31,800 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves


$51,195 ………. Total Savings Needed


I would like to thank the Newport Harbor Rotary Club for inviting me to speak last night. It was fun.

41 thoughts on “A proposed amendment to the California Constitution to ban foreclosures

  1. winstongator

    I am as bleeding heart a Democrat as there is, but this amendment is the Worst Idea Ever.

    How about we do this for car loans, but don’t let the lender repo the car. You can always put your home on your 20% credit card – this is only slightly tongue in cheek, as I’m sure many homeowners used their credit cards up to the limit to keep up with their home payments. The opposite of strategic defaulters?

    Is it bikable from this condo to UCI? Are $300k condos something parents buy for students? In my college town it was more like $50-60k condos. That town did have a planned condo project that was targeted as ‘football weekend luxury condos’. Condos that would be used 10 weekends a year. On a prime corner just off campus, 1/2 mile walk to the football stadium. It was a terrible idea and the lot where it was planned for still sits empty.

    1. alan

      Yup, UCI parents buy this, they put bunk beds in each bedroom so they can cram 4 students into it, then you charge each one $1,000/month rent and viola… +++ cash flow..

      Of course, the condo gets trashed but at least they can’t break those granite counter tops.

      1. rkp

        I have lived in this complex for 1.5 years and have seen the community decline quickly. I am a renter but I do think that a community full of renters will not be as nice as a community full of owners. The incentive to maintain communal property isnt as strong. Things like littering, cigarette butts, smoking in the hallways and stairs (not much ventilation so strong odor), loud noise, kicking doors to open instead of pushing the bar, etc. Just ask yourself how you treat a rental car and how you treat your own car.

        Compound that with underwater owners renting out to less than ideal tenants like 3-4 college students in a 2 bedroom and you get a very different atmosphere.

        This wont rent for $4000 even if you rent to 4 college students. They arent stupid and can easily find a 2 bedroom for $2000 in the area and then still move in 4 people. This will rent for $1600-1800 tops.

        The unit I am in first sold for $700K+! A little over 1200 sq ft and $700K+ –> insanity. My landlord bought it for $450K and I dont think he can sell it for $350K today. I also dont think the featured unit will get even $250K.

        1. alan

          my nephew is one of those students.. my sisters pays like 1500/month for him to share a tiny dorm room on campus and get like one or two awfull, cafeteria style meals/day. this place would be heaven compared to his dorm room

          1. rkp

            If your nephew has a car and doesnt care to live in campus housing, then he really should move. Most people want to stay in campus housing because of the experience of being around your friends.

  2. Will

    How about an initiative to ban ugliness or meanness or failure? I can’t stand any of those. If we pass an initiative banning them there will be no more mean, ugly people or failure. Problems solved!

  3. r€nato

    Is Mr. Benson’s proposal absurd? Sure. But no more absurd than the notion possessed by quite a few that they deserve to benefit from public schools, police, fire, military defense, public roads etc but don’t want to pay any taxes.

    And unlike Mr. Benson, these people have a significant number of politicians who will happily cater to their desires to get something for nothing.

    Cracked.com recently featured an article citing 10 examples of how our civil court system is thoroughly screwed up. What followed were 10 examples of outrageous suits that people filed… and all of them either failed to win a judgement or won a much, much smaller judgement than that originally sought.

    Anybody can propose any daft idea in this country, like returning to the gold standard or banning foreclosure. Doesn’t mean it’s a reason to panic.

    1. whatever

      Are you are talking about the 49% of people in this country who pay no federal income tax and want to keep it that way by increasing borrowing and taxes on the 51% who do?

      1. HydroCabron

        And people who don’t own sailboats pay no slip fees.

        The bottom half pays plenty in state, local, and payroll taxes. I’m not sure why this fact that they get a break on federal income taxes gets so much play. Maybe AM radio is the best explanation.

    2. HydroCabron

      Anybody can propose any daft idea in this country, like returning to the gold standard or banning foreclosure. Doesn’t mean it’s a reason to panic.

      You misunderstand our “liberal” (ahahahaha!) media. You see, ridiculous left-wing stuff which never goes anywhere, is overturned on appeal, or costs us hundreds of millions (e.g., cushy public-sector unionized jobs) is trumpeted all over the media: “That bastard tried to trim his hedge with the lawnmower and sued? Horrors!” – except that one never happened.

      Meanwhile, real Patriot Acts and real wars which cost us trillions – well, they didn’t really happen. Oh, and those tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts which also cost us trillions and did nothnig to stimulate creative investment or create jobs? They need to be kept, else the wealthy will all leave the country and we’ll be bereft without them.

      Now the same people who lie awake nights worrying about the well-being of the wealthy have tried to send treasuries into a spiral by flirting with default. Guess who holds a lot of treasuries? Why, the wealthy in this country, of course! That’s the triumph of brainwashed ideology over principles: the wealthy are, finally, subservient to the creed of an ideology which by definition is inerrant.

      Any examination of how corporations and wealthy individuals have gamed our system is deferred in favor of questions like “Public workers: 100% worthless, or 100% evil?” and “Are we blaming unions enough? Should we kick them or just spit on them?”

  4. Lemon Spaceship

    “(a) Real estate lending institutions have failed to provide a simple method of loan modification and foreclosure prevention.”

    LOL – a simple method to prevent foreclosure: pay the mortgage!

    But really the state legislature is more like a bad sitcom. A great many of these proposals are not serious, they’re just posturing for votes.

  5. wheresthebeef

    A 47% loss in Irvine if it sells for the ask. I thought Irvine was immune to the bubble.

    Maybe a savy parent will buy this place so their kids can go to Uni High…it is afterall the eigth best high school in the country. A small price to pay.


    1. Marc

      It’s actually the Santa Ana school district! Same with all the other medium-/high-rises in the area.

      1. wheresthebeef

        Oh boy, there’s goes my idea of buying up all the units and making it a Uni High clown house.

        That being the case, they’ll be lucky to get low 200K for this.

        I’ve talked to plenty of young proffesionals (the ones who should be buying places like this). Comments I get: why buy an apartment when you can rent one, prices are still inflated, prices aren’t going up anytime soon and probably the most popular…I don’t know if I’ll have my job in ______ (fill in the blank). Home buying isn’t quite what it was to prior generations…smart kids.

    2. Chris

      SHHH….don’t tell that to PR (where the hell is he anyway?). He’ll claim that SFH are holding up nicely from the 2009 low, thank u very much.

  6. Alan

    Sometimes you just want to give people what they demand, and let them decide if they like the result. Having the California housing market go to a 100% down payment system might turn out to be an interesting experience. It would sure be nice to get a (huge!) loan before the bill passes though.

    A number of states are doing the experiment with gun ownership for practically anyone, concealed carry permission, etc. If they are right, then they’ll be much safer, crime will vanish and the rest of the states will see the light and follow suit. Perhaps the Tea Partiers should see what no Medicare, no Social Security, cops and firefighters on no benefits and hourly minimum wages will really look like.

    1. zubs

      If this gets on the ballot vote YES on it. Mortgage lending in CA will then become nonexistent. We need to start a campaign.

      Voting yes on this law will cause house prices to go drop, because it will be hard to find a lender. I am liking this unintended consequence.

      1. All your housing are belong to us!

        Yep cash only market. Welcome to the 1800s…let’s get back on the gold standard while were at it. Abolish the FED now!

    2. DarthFerret

      Perhaps the Tea Partiers should see what no Medicare, no Social Security, cops and firefighters on no benefits and hourly minimum wages will really look like.

      I’ll settle for drastically-reduced SSA/Medicare (safety nets, not full-fledged retirement plans) and cops/firefighters not retiring on 90% of their full working salaries. Oh, and kill these ‘cadillac’ healthcare plans for gov’t workers, too. Civil service healthcare plans should reflect what private sector workers receive.

      Why do I get to dictate these things? Because I pay your salary, that’s why. Now say “yes, boss” and get back to pretending to work.


      1. HydroCabron

        Not to pick apart your post – it’s done often enough on the Internet – but why no mention of military retirement benefits? 20 years cliff vesting? Why not a corporate-style pension system for them as well?

        1. DarthFerret

          Not to pick apart your post

          Actually, that is what you intend to do. Go right ahead.

          but why no mention of military retirement benefits? 20 years cliff vesting? Why not a corporate-style pension system for them as well?

          First of all, my post was far from comprehensive. I wasn’t delivering my all-encompassing vision for every aspect of gov’t policy.

          But, since you ask, I am in favor of bumping military retirement age up to 25 years. Much beyond that, however, and you run into the ability of an aging force to perform in combat. Even with all of our technology, light infantry ground combat is still a younger-man’s game. Alternately, we could make combat arms 20 years for retirement, combat support branches 25 years, and combat service support branches 30 years (these are distinctions in the U.S. Army; don’t know much about Air Farce and Knavey). I’d even favor delaying the payout of retirement benefits until age 60+. I don’t favor double-dipping; if they can work, they should work. Military disability pay can continue to cover those injured while on duty and unable to work.

          Having said all this, the military should NOT run on exactly the same standards as the non-military gov’t workers. There are some special benefits for standing in harm’s way. Folks at the DMV aren’t exactly throwing themselves on IED’s on a daily basis.


          1. darms

            How about a lifelong ban on high-ranking military officials from working for defense contractors or lobbying firms? Could add this as a condition of them receiving their rank.

          2. Jack-Booted EULA

            Want some real savings? Thirty years, no payout til 65. Can’t fill the positions? Bring back the draft.


          3. DarthFerret

            Lots of unintended consequences there. I suspect that a lot of the more capable officers would depart the service right before that cutoff. The lower you make it, the less effective your military becomes. I hate corruption as much as the next guy, but I also don’t want a cadre of incompetent officers unnecessarily killing U.S. soldiers. There might be fore effective ways to combat this problem of corruption and undue influence.


  7. Casual Observer

    A perfect example of why California should do away with the initiative process. Or at least require that any initiative have judicial review BEFORE it is put on any ballot. There are enough ill-informed, stupid people out there that might vote for this. Isn’t that why we elect and support a State Legislature?

    Or, maybe, this act should be extended to stock purchases and any other investment vehicles….wow, that’s a great idea 😛

  8. Vincenzo

    There is nothing strange in this amendment.
    If people can vote, they always vote for additional benefits.

    Alexander Tyler was a 18th century historian/economist who wrote “The Cycle of Democracy” in 1778.

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

    The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years.

    These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.”

      1. Alix_Khan

        If I had a dollar for every time I had to put up with this, I will have a home in Turtle Rock by now 🙂

        We are a democracy AND a republic. We are a republic because the supreme control of the govt. is not help by some monarch. We are a democracy because all citizens have a direct say in elections, and hence, running of the government.

        Canada is a democracy but not a republic as they have constitutional monarchy.

        China is not a democracy but is a republic. Note their name, People’s Republic of China.

        Saudi Arabia is neither a democracy or a republic.

        USA is a democracy and a republic.

      2. darms

        On paper we’re a constitutional democratic republic. In reality though, we’re something else these days…

  9. awgee

    Why don’t they just get it over with and draft a Constitutional ammendment that negates private property rights?

        1. darms

          Yeah, I’m sure your privately owned handgun is a match for an Apache helicopter sporting a mini-gun or two or a Predator drone w/Hellfire missiles. Private weaponry is no match for US Military/National Guard/local police firepower these days and folks who think otherwise are fooling themselves. (or are international arms dealers)

  10. Cheryl

    My Husband and I just celebrated the paying off of our 30 year mortgage. Nobody ever reduced our interest or our principal amount. What a nightmare our entire economy has become. I don’t know if it will ever be the same again. Very sad!

  11. PQuincy

    I’m just appalled by the semi-literate misuse of the English language in Mr. Benson’s proposal. I recommend we give it to his 7th-grade English teacher for review (if there are any 7th-grade English teachers left after school budget cuts that leave administration untouched, after Federal mandates, after the latest pedagogical craze for grammar-free teaching, and after the latest heavily armed 7th-grader runs amok).

Comments are closed.