Posted on

Are Millennials Inheriting The Nation Our Founding Fathers Envisioned?


November 5,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, American young people, who helped make Bernie Sanders a contender if not a winner in the Democratic Party’s primary, may play a critical role in the general election.

But as they cast their ballots, millennials might want to seek direction from the Founding Fathers.

“In 2008, we hoped for the future,” says Alexander G. Markovsky, author of Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It. “In 2016, we hope for the past.”

That may be especially important for young people – some of whom will be voting in a presidential election for the first time – because they have inherited a nation that has evolved in ways the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have envisioned, Markovsky says.

He says messages the Founding Fathers might have for millennials include:

• Inequality is the locomotive of progress. Economic equality and justice sound so appealing that the true believers do not even realized that economic equality is in itself an intrinsically unjust concept. “The source of all wealth is the product of man’s God-given ability to innovate,” Markovsky says. This intellectual ability is a property of the individual and has not been given equally; therefore it wouldn’t be reasonable to expect equal results from unequal abilities. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers had envisioned America built on a foundation of economic freedom and equal opportunities and never addressed inequality in any of the documents they have created. “The Founding Fathers saw America as prosperous and wealthy country and recognized that economic equality and wealth are mutually exclusive,” Markovsky says.

• Job creation. Political debates focused on job creation are a result of lack of understanding of the free market economy.  “The purpose of capitalism is not job creation. The purpose of the capitalist economy is to create wealth. Employment and the subsequent distribution of the spoils of an economy are by-products of capitalism,” Markovsky says.

• The 17th Amendment drastically changed how we’re governed. The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is perhaps the best example of why the younger generation is inheriting is not the United States the Founding Fathers intended, Markovsky says. The House of Representatives was intended to be a “People’s House,” with representatives directly elected by the people in their respective districts. Senators were to be selected by state legislatures to represent the states and ensure their sovereignty.

The Seventeenth Amendment ratified in 1913 established the direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote. This effectively took power from the states, making a mockery of the original intent of the United States Constitution and de facto nullifying the 10th Amendment, rendering it unenforceable. With the ratification of the 17th Amendment the balance of power so carefully constructed by the Founders shifted irrevocably in favor of the federal government at the expense of the states’ sovereignty. With passage of the 17th Amendment, the Senate lost not only its original intended purpose; it became redundant at best and an impediment at worst. Paraphrasing Churchill, “Never has so much been surrendered by so many to so few.”

Markovsky understands if young people are unhappy about their choices in this year’s presidential election. However, the choices of these elections should not be between the individuals and their respective vices, but between potential restoration of the Constitutional principle or further expansion of the Federal Government, subversion of the Constitution and tyranny. As Markovsky pointed out in his book, government by its very nature is an institution of tyranny, a phenomenon the Founding Fathers were well aware of and they designed our Constitution to protect citizens from governmental oppression.

Perhaps that’s something that a combination of the millennial spirit and the Founding Fathers’ vision can provide.

About Alexander G. Markovsky

Alexander G. Markovsky, author of Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It, was born in the Soviet Union and now lives in Houston, Texas. He holds degrees in economics and political science from the University of Marxism-Leninism. He is a contributor to and his work also appears on and

Posted on

What Patricia Arquette Got Wrong About the Founders and Women



What Patricia Arquette Got Wrong About the Founders and Women
David Azerrad / February 23, 2015

In a harried Oscar acceptance speech which culminated in a hackneyed call for wage equality, actress Patricia Arquette blamed the Founders for the so-called gender pay gap.

“It’s inexcusable that we go around the world and we talk about equal rights for women in other countries when we don’t have equal rights for women in America,” Arquette, who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, said. “And we don’t because when they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t intend it for women.”

Like many Americans, actress Patricia Arquette doesn’t understand the Constitution (she also doesn’t understand basic economics as The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway pointed out).

If the Framers didn’t intend the Constitution for women, they sure did a fine job of concealing their intention. Nowhere in the original Constitution are citizens classified according to sex. As Tiffany Jones Miller explains in the “Heritage Guide to The Constitution” essay on the 19th Amendment:

Contrary to popular belief, the United States Constitution of 1787 is a gender-neutral document. Throughout the original text, the Framers refer to “persons”—as opposed to “male persons”—and use the pronoun “he” only in the generic sense. The word “male” did not even appear in the Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

While we’re at it, it’s worth pointing out that the Declaration of Independence also doesn’t take into account sex in proclaiming that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. The Declaration speaks of “all men” and not “all human beings” because the former is a more rhetorically powerful way to describe mankind.

Neither one of our founding documents classifies people according to sex—or according to race or religion for that matter. Therefore, contrary to what many civics textbooks incorrectly teach, the original Constitution did not restrict the right to vote to white, property-owning males aged 21 or older.

Women were voting in New Jersey at the time of the Founding! For the first time in recorded history, women voted alongside men in elections

The Constitution defers to the states on voting eligibility in federal elections. As is plainly written in Article I, Section 2: “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

As a result, voting eligibility varied by state. Certain states denied blacks the right to vote—but a majority did not. And—here comes the whopper—women were voting in New Jersey at the time of the Founding! For the first time in recorded history, women voted alongside men in elections. And it happened right here in America—the first country in the world dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal.

The 19th Amendment, therefore, did not give women the right to vote. It guaranteed women the right to vote. By the time it was ratified in 1920, more than three-fourths of the states already allowed women to vote in some or all elections. Ultimately, the seeds of women’s suffrage were sown in the Declaration of Independence’s dedication to equality.

Whatever the state of remuneration in the workplace may be today, Patricia Arquette and others should leave the Founders out of it.