Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Within my own state i've seen increased turnout when ballot issues are on the ballot because people see the direct impact, and like voting directly on issues. Low turnout isnt necessarily a bad thing.....some things people would not take and interest in and that is ok. I think the addition of such an option would lessen partisan politics.
Most of the pictures in my gallery deal with issue of democracy/republic.....Jefferson said the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority. lex majoris partis.....
I agree with you on how interventionist our "leaders" have been.....but that isnt the american people as a whole, generally.
And how often do people go out and vote? 4 times a year?
Support of the Iraq war in the US was quite high. Support in the UK was about 5%-10%.
Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq
"Seventy-two percent of Americans interviewed in a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Saturday and Sunday favor the war against Iraq, while 25% are opposed."
The Powell Doctrine has, as one of it's reasons for going to war, the support of the people. So, they make support. No hard if you have the media on your side constantly blurting out negative things about Iraq and Saddam and WMDs and things. The Whole WMD thing was made up, yet the American people took it hook line and sinker.
If you look at the media on Iran right now, it's all about these nuclear talks. The Nuclear issue for Iran is the same as the WMD issue for Iraq.
The US watched as Pakistan went and got nuclear weapons because they were "allies" at the time. I'd rather Iran having them, they're a far more stable country and less loony than the Pakistanis are.
Iran atomic bomb probe may be completed in 2015 IAEA - Yahoo News
Here's a news story on Iran and atomic bombs.
The whole issue basically associates Iran with nukes, and the US doesn't like nukes for countries that it may one day want to invade. Rhetoric is quite low seeing as Obama is in power and the right know they can't invade right now. However Iran still comes quite high up the list of foreign countries getting in the press.
Nonsense.The recourse is SIMPLE. You change the constitution. If so many people are in favor of something else, then Congress and the states can change it.
It's called checks and balances. It's funny how many people simply don't understand how the US political system works.
Nothing worse than trying to fix a problem when you don't know how the thing works in the first place.
It is not a matter of understanding how the system works. How does it help to change the Constitution if one or more branches of the government, including the High Court, chooses not to follow it?
Who doesn't follow it? I don't see anyone not following. I see them using it for their own goals. I don't like that, however they're within the rules.
Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.
I believe the problem is that we've lost track of what the branches were supposed to do.
The President was there to enforce the laws. He or she wasn't supposed to set the direction of the country.
That is the job of the House. And even then it was to be limited to the scope spelled out in the Constitution. It is amazing to me that so many think that the "General Welfare" clause is an open invitation to the federal government to get involved in anything and everything. We've lost that understanding.
The senate was appointed by the states so that it could keep an eye on the house. That way the house didn't do stuff to infringe on the powers of the states as were CLEARLY defined by the 10th amendment and elaborated upon by Madison, at length, in Federalist 44, 45, and 46 (meaning there should be no question as to what was intended).
The SCOTUS was to have no force. A SSM ruling like the one we got would never have occured to our founders. The idea was that the SCOTUS rule on anything within the scope of the Federal Government's powers (i.e. the first amendment). Never was it to stick it's nose into things like abortion or SSM.
The 14th amendment was and is a mess. It's a classic example of good intentions gone wrong. It does not do what people claim it does on either side. It is ambiguous.
But it gave sway to the idea supported by a SCOTUS judge in the 1930's that somehow the Bill of Rights should be incorporated on the states.
It's a sad tale.
The branches of the Federal government are functioning exactly as the Framers had intended.
And that original intent:
A Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men.
A Constitution that safeguards the inalienable rights of every person in the Republic, rights that are immune from attack by the Federal government, state governments, and local governments.
A Constitution and its case law that is the supreme law of the land, as determined by the Federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review that was well in place and practiced before and during the Foundation Era, and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.
A National government controlled solely by the people, absent interference by the states, where the rights of citizens are paramount, and the states subordinate to those rights, where one's civil liberties are not subject to 'majority rule,' and the states have no power to decide whether the citizens residing in the states will or will not have their civil rights.
Consequently, the Obergefell ruling is consistent with the above intentions, consistent with the original intent of the Framers, and consistent with the rule of law safeguarding the inalienable rights of all Americans, because one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, including gay Americans.
Last, that the Court has ruled in a manner that upsets some, that conflicts with their personal and subjective beliefs and political dogma, is not 'justification' to 'amend' the Constitution in some manner inconsistent with the Framers' original intent – that being the primacy of the rule of law; and the people already 'have the power,' there is no need for 'restoration,' because with power comes responsibility, therefore, when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those measures are lawfully and appropriately invalidated by the courts.
Within my own state i've seen increased turnout when ballot issues are on the ballot because people see the direct impact, and like voting directly on issues. Low turnout isnt necessarily a bad thing.....some things people would not take and interest in and that is ok. I think the addition of such an option would lessen partisan politics.
Most of the pictures in my gallery deal with issue of democracy/republic.....Jefferson said the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority. lex majoris partis.....
I agree with you on how interventionist our "leaders" have been.....but that isnt the american people as a whole, generally.
And how often do people go out and vote? 4 times a year?
Support of the Iraq war in the US was quite high. Support in the UK was about 5%-10%.
Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq
"Seventy-two percent of Americans interviewed in a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Saturday and Sunday favor the war against Iraq, while 25% are opposed."
The Powell Doctrine has, as one of it's reasons for going to war, the support of the people. So, they make support. No hard if you have the media on your side constantly blurting out negative things about Iraq and Saddam and WMDs and things. The Whole WMD thing was made up, yet the American people took it hook line and sinker.
If you look at the media on Iran right now, it's all about these nuclear talks. The Nuclear issue for Iran is the same as the WMD issue for Iraq.
The US watched as Pakistan went and got nuclear weapons because they were "allies" at the time. I'd rather Iran having them, they're a far more stable country and less loony than the Pakistanis are.
Iran atomic bomb probe may be completed in 2015 IAEA - Yahoo News
Here's a news story on Iran and atomic bombs.
The whole issue basically associates Iran with nukes, and the US doesn't like nukes for countries that it may one day want to invade. Rhetoric is quite low seeing as Obama is in power and the right know they can't invade right now. However Iran still comes quite high up the list of foreign countries getting in the press.
But what the historians have always known, when you change the system, the people will change their behavior. We cannot know how the people would handle more responsibility and power if it is given to them. We only know how they handle not having it.
Of course. However the US needs to change other things first before embarking on initiatives. PR for presidential elections would be a good place to start. Then perhaps for the House too. Also getting rid of the corruption that has been legitimised in politics, especially in DC.
and none of this points to an electorate having a more direct say having worse outcomes..... Votes are different than polls, polls have been and are manipulated. Votes generally generate more serious public discussion.
Yeah, I understand that point of view. However I also thing this will just be hijacked by certain political groups, especially right wing Christians, for their own purpose.a national initiative is probably the only hope of ever getting meaningful reforms like you talked about passed. Washington is too corrupt to reform itself.
Who doesn't follow it? I don't see anyone not following. I see them using it for their own goals. I don't like that, however they're within the rules.
Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.
I believe the problem is that we've lost track of what the branches were supposed to do.
The President was there to enforce the laws. He or she wasn't supposed to set the direction of the country.
That is the job of the House. And even then it was to be limited to the scope spelled out in the Constitution. It is amazing to me that so many think that the "General Welfare" clause is an open invitation to the federal government to get involved in anything and everything. We've lost that understanding.
The senate was appointed by the states so that it could keep an eye on the house. That way the house didn't do stuff to infringe on the powers of the states as were CLEARLY defined by the 10th amendment and elaborated upon by Madison, at length, in Federalist 44, 45, and 46 (meaning there should be no question as to what was intended).
The SCOTUS was to have no force. A SSM ruling like the one we got would never have occured to our founders. The idea was that the SCOTUS rule on anything within the scope of the Federal Government's powers (i.e. the first amendment). Never was it to stick it's nose into things like abortion or SSM.
The 14th amendment was and is a mess. It's a classic example of good intentions gone wrong. It does not do what people claim it does on either side. It is ambiguous.
But it gave sway to the idea supported by a SCOTUS judge in the 1930's that somehow the Bill of Rights should be incorporated on the states.
It's a sad tale.
The leader of the nation was to be the President (the Executive). This is why it is the only nationwide office that is elected.
Management of the nation was to be done by the Congress
The courts have never ruled on abortion or SSM; only the underpinnings of those issues. Roe isn't an abortion topic; it is a woman's right to privacy that was decided. The direct result was abortions being safe and legal (So the Supreme Court then took a case, one from Texas and one from Georgia, and the question was: Is there a right of privacy?)
Much in the same way the Title IX decision wasn't about women's sports being on par with male counterparts in public universities. It was equal. It was about granting equal opportunity to women in all disciplines. Sports is simply the most visible area.
And yet there remains broad divides and huge resentment and almost no cultural agreement on much of anything. So we're doing something wrong. I think giving the power back to the states and the people probably won't make us agree on any more topics, but it will at least make us more tolerant of each other and more likely to allow everybody to do their own thing in the way that they deem best. And we will probably start looking for candidates that we can respect and admire and trust again instead of most people voting strict party lines in retaliation against the other party.
Allowing intolerance and persecution to stand is not acceptable.
If you're Chevron and you have a dynamite office manager who really knows how to guide a staff or a roughneck who knows how to motivate a crew and you want to send him/her to another state to improve an office or under-producing well, you'd like to be able to do that without these persons having qualms about whether their lifestyle choices would be breaking the law in that state. So, because of some bizarre action by the legislature, Chevron misses out on the opportunity to improve their business.
Or, if you need open heart surgery and the leading specialist is homosexual and chooses not to fly to Texas where the law could be made to lynch "fags" I guess you'll just die or rely on a less-skilled surgeon?
Or, as political winds change, what was acceptable in 2015 is suddenly outlawed in 2020..I guess you will just have to move away or rely on the mercy of the newly installed regime to be "accepted"....
And if that new regime is not happy with you and your lesbian lover raising your child...can they take your kid away from you?
This is why human rights should never be put to popular vote.
a national initiative is probably the only hope of ever getting meaningful reforms like you talked about passed. Washington is too corrupt to reform itself.
You're the only one assigning values to SCOTUS rulings. I simply explained why human rights are non negotiable.Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.
I believe the problem is that we've lost track of what the branches were supposed to do.
The President was there to enforce the laws. He or she wasn't supposed to set the direction of the country.
That is the job of the House. And even then it was to be limited to the scope spelled out in the Constitution. It is amazing to me that so many think that the "General Welfare" clause is an open invitation to the federal government to get involved in anything and everything. We've lost that understanding.
The senate was appointed by the states so that it could keep an eye on the house. That way the house didn't do stuff to infringe on the powers of the states as were CLEARLY defined by the 10th amendment and elaborated upon by Madison, at length, in Federalist 44, 45, and 46 (meaning there should be no question as to what was intended).
The SCOTUS was to have no force. A SSM ruling like the one we got would never have occured to our founders. The idea was that the SCOTUS rule on anything within the scope of the Federal Government's powers (i.e. the first amendment). Never was it to stick it's nose into things like abortion or SSM.
The 14th amendment was and is a mess. It's a classic example of good intentions gone wrong. It does not do what people claim it does on either side. It is ambiguous.
But it gave sway to the idea supported by a SCOTUS judge in the 1930's that somehow the Bill of Rights should be incorporated on the states.
It's a sad tale.
The leader of the nation was to be the President (the Executive). This is why it is the only nationwide office that is elected.
Management of the nation was to be done by the Congress
The courts have never ruled on abortion or SSM; only the underpinnings of those issues. Roe isn't an abortion topic; it is a woman's right to privacy that was decided. The direct result was abortions being safe and legal (So the Supreme Court then took a case, one from Texas and one from Georgia, and the question was: Is there a right of privacy?)
Much in the same way the Title IX decision wasn't about women's sports being on par with male counterparts in public universities. It was equal. It was about granting equal opportunity to women in all disciplines. Sports is simply the most visible area.
And yet there remains broad divides and huge resentment and almost no cultural agreement on much of anything. So we're doing something wrong. I think giving the power back to the states and the people probably won't make us agree on any more topics, but it will at least make us more tolerant of each other and more likely to allow everybody to do their own thing in the way that they deem best. And we will probably start looking for candidates that we can respect and admire and trust again instead of most people voting strict party lines in retaliation against the other party.
Allowing intolerance and persecution to stand is not acceptable.
If you're Chevron and you have a dynamite office manager who really knows how to guide a staff or a roughneck who knows how to motivate a crew and you want to send him/her to another state to improve an office or under-producing well, you'd like to be able to do that without these persons having qualms about whether their lifestyle choices would be breaking the law in that state. So, because of some bizarre action by the legislature, Chevron misses out on the opportunity to improve their business.
Or, if you need open heart surgery and the leading specialist is homosexual and chooses not to fly to Texas where the law could be made to lynch "fags" I guess you'll just die or rely on a less-skilled surgeon?
Or, as political winds change, what was acceptable in 2015 is suddenly outlawed in 2020..I guess you will just have to move away or rely on the mercy of the newly installed regime to be "accepted"....
And if that new regime is not happy with you and your lesbian lover raising your child...can they take your kid away from you?
This is why human rights should never be put to popular vote.
This thread is not about marriage laws, but only whether a small minority in the federal government should dictate them or whether that should be left to the states and people themselves to decide. Nor was this country ever designed to be organized, structured, and administrated in a way that pleases Foxfyre but not Candy Corn or that pleases Candy Corn and not Foxfyre.
The problem that comes when government is given power to dictate what is 'right and wrong', what is 'good and evil', who will be the winners and who will be the losers, as much as half the people or more will be unhappy with government's judgment about that.
John Jay's Federalist papers are a fascinating read about the dangers of government supporting this faction or that faction that will always be present amidst a free people. And since the federal government is the government of all the people, the federal government should never be given authority to dictate which faction will be rewarded and which faction will be disappointed or angered.
John Jay usually wrote under the pseudonym 'Publius":
. . .Thus, Publius argues that self-government is possible and indeed desirable, but only under certain conditions. The two most important conditions are properly structured governing institutions and a virtuous people.
Government is structured properly when it conforms to the great principles newly discovered by political science: checks and balances, separation of powers, the scheme of representation, the division of political authority between the national and state governments, and the like. These structures divide political power so as to make unlikely the concentration of too much power in one person or office, and to make government responsive to the will of the people, as contrasted with the immediate expression of every caprice and passion of the people. They also enlist the self-interest of the elected representative in the support of those very constitutional structures that are intended to secure our rights. . . .
. . . .But what are the virtues that pertain specifically to the president? Publius says that, whereas it is the work of the legislative branch to deliberate--that is, to consider what laws should be passed--and of the judicial branch to judge whether laws or actions conform to the Constitution, it is the work of the executive branch to carry out the will of the people, as expressed in acts of legislation, or as required by political necessities, such as domestic disasters, or foreign attack. Accordingly, the president acts in behalf of all the people for their common good. "Talents for low intrigue," writes Publius in Federalist 68, "and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States."
Thus, the president must have those qualities-dedication to the public good, for example-that earn the "esteem and confidence of the whole union." . . . .
You're the only one assigning values to SCOTUS rulings. I simply explained why human rights are non negotiable.I believe the problem is that we've lost track of what the branches were supposed to do.
The President was there to enforce the laws. He or she wasn't supposed to set the direction of the country.
That is the job of the House. And even then it was to be limited to the scope spelled out in the Constitution. It is amazing to me that so many think that the "General Welfare" clause is an open invitation to the federal government to get involved in anything and everything. We've lost that understanding.
The senate was appointed by the states so that it could keep an eye on the house. That way the house didn't do stuff to infringe on the powers of the states as were CLEARLY defined by the 10th amendment and elaborated upon by Madison, at length, in Federalist 44, 45, and 46 (meaning there should be no question as to what was intended).
The SCOTUS was to have no force. A SSM ruling like the one we got would never have occured to our founders. The idea was that the SCOTUS rule on anything within the scope of the Federal Government's powers (i.e. the first amendment). Never was it to stick it's nose into things like abortion or SSM.
The 14th amendment was and is a mess. It's a classic example of good intentions gone wrong. It does not do what people claim it does on either side. It is ambiguous.
But it gave sway to the idea supported by a SCOTUS judge in the 1930's that somehow the Bill of Rights should be incorporated on the states.
It's a sad tale.
The leader of the nation was to be the President (the Executive). This is why it is the only nationwide office that is elected.
Management of the nation was to be done by the Congress
The courts have never ruled on abortion or SSM; only the underpinnings of those issues. Roe isn't an abortion topic; it is a woman's right to privacy that was decided. The direct result was abortions being safe and legal (So the Supreme Court then took a case, one from Texas and one from Georgia, and the question was: Is there a right of privacy?)
Much in the same way the Title IX decision wasn't about women's sports being on par with male counterparts in public universities. It was equal. It was about granting equal opportunity to women in all disciplines. Sports is simply the most visible area.
And yet there remains broad divides and huge resentment and almost no cultural agreement on much of anything. So we're doing something wrong. I think giving the power back to the states and the people probably won't make us agree on any more topics, but it will at least make us more tolerant of each other and more likely to allow everybody to do their own thing in the way that they deem best. And we will probably start looking for candidates that we can respect and admire and trust again instead of most people voting strict party lines in retaliation against the other party.
Allowing intolerance and persecution to stand is not acceptable.
If you're Chevron and you have a dynamite office manager who really knows how to guide a staff or a roughneck who knows how to motivate a crew and you want to send him/her to another state to improve an office or under-producing well, you'd like to be able to do that without these persons having qualms about whether their lifestyle choices would be breaking the law in that state. So, because of some bizarre action by the legislature, Chevron misses out on the opportunity to improve their business.
Or, if you need open heart surgery and the leading specialist is homosexual and chooses not to fly to Texas where the law could be made to lynch "fags" I guess you'll just die or rely on a less-skilled surgeon?
Or, as political winds change, what was acceptable in 2015 is suddenly outlawed in 2020..I guess you will just have to move away or rely on the mercy of the newly installed regime to be "accepted"....
And if that new regime is not happy with you and your lesbian lover raising your child...can they take your kid away from you?
This is why human rights should never be put to popular vote.
This thread is not about marriage laws, but only whether a small minority in the federal government should dictate them or whether that should be left to the states and people themselves to decide. Nor was this country ever designed to be organized, structured, and administrated in a way that pleases Foxfyre but not Candy Corn or that pleases Candy Corn and not Foxfyre.
The problem that comes when government is given power to dictate what is 'right and wrong', what is 'good and evil', who will be the winners and who will be the losers, as much as half the people or more will be unhappy with government's judgment about that.
John Jay's Federalist papers are a fascinating read about the dangers of government supporting this faction or that faction that will always be present amidst a free people. And since the federal government is the government of all the people, the federal government should never be given authority to dictate which faction will be rewarded and which faction will be disappointed or angered.
John Jay usually wrote under the pseudonym 'Publius":
. . .Thus, Publius argues that self-government is possible and indeed desirable, but only under certain conditions. The two most important conditions are properly structured governing institutions and a virtuous people.
Government is structured properly when it conforms to the great principles newly discovered by political science: checks and balances, separation of powers, the scheme of representation, the division of political authority between the national and state governments, and the like. These structures divide political power so as to make unlikely the concentration of too much power in one person or office, and to make government responsive to the will of the people, as contrasted with the immediate expression of every caprice and passion of the people. They also enlist the self-interest of the elected representative in the support of those very constitutional structures that are intended to secure our rights. . . .
. . . .But what are the virtues that pertain specifically to the president? Publius says that, whereas it is the work of the legislative branch to deliberate--that is, to consider what laws should be passed--and of the judicial branch to judge whether laws or actions conform to the Constitution, it is the work of the executive branch to carry out the will of the people, as expressed in acts of legislation, or as required by political necessities, such as domestic disasters, or foreign attack. Accordingly, the president acts in behalf of all the people for their common good. "Talents for low intrigue," writes Publius in Federalist 68, "and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States."
Thus, the president must have those qualities-dedication to the public good, for example-that earn the "esteem and confidence of the whole union." . . . .
You're the only one assigning values to SCOTUS rulings. I simply explained why human rights are non negotiable.The leader of the nation was to be the President (the Executive). This is why it is the only nationwide office that is elected.
Management of the nation was to be done by the Congress
The courts have never ruled on abortion or SSM; only the underpinnings of those issues. Roe isn't an abortion topic; it is a woman's right to privacy that was decided. The direct result was abortions being safe and legal (So the Supreme Court then took a case, one from Texas and one from Georgia, and the question was: Is there a right of privacy?)
Much in the same way the Title IX decision wasn't about women's sports being on par with male counterparts in public universities. It was equal. It was about granting equal opportunity to women in all disciplines. Sports is simply the most visible area.
And yet there remains broad divides and huge resentment and almost no cultural agreement on much of anything. So we're doing something wrong. I think giving the power back to the states and the people probably won't make us agree on any more topics, but it will at least make us more tolerant of each other and more likely to allow everybody to do their own thing in the way that they deem best. And we will probably start looking for candidates that we can respect and admire and trust again instead of most people voting strict party lines in retaliation against the other party.
Allowing intolerance and persecution to stand is not acceptable.
If you're Chevron and you have a dynamite office manager who really knows how to guide a staff or a roughneck who knows how to motivate a crew and you want to send him/her to another state to improve an office or under-producing well, you'd like to be able to do that without these persons having qualms about whether their lifestyle choices would be breaking the law in that state. So, because of some bizarre action by the legislature, Chevron misses out on the opportunity to improve their business.
Or, if you need open heart surgery and the leading specialist is homosexual and chooses not to fly to Texas where the law could be made to lynch "fags" I guess you'll just die or rely on a less-skilled surgeon?
Or, as political winds change, what was acceptable in 2015 is suddenly outlawed in 2020..I guess you will just have to move away or rely on the mercy of the newly installed regime to be "accepted"....
And if that new regime is not happy with you and your lesbian lover raising your child...can they take your kid away from you?
This is why human rights should never be put to popular vote.
This thread is not about marriage laws, but only whether a small minority in the federal government should dictate them or whether that should be left to the states and people themselves to decide. Nor was this country ever designed to be organized, structured, and administrated in a way that pleases Foxfyre but not Candy Corn or that pleases Candy Corn and not Foxfyre.
The problem that comes when government is given power to dictate what is 'right and wrong', what is 'good and evil', who will be the winners and who will be the losers, as much as half the people or more will be unhappy with government's judgment about that.
John Jay's Federalist papers are a fascinating read about the dangers of government supporting this faction or that faction that will always be present amidst a free people. And since the federal government is the government of all the people, the federal government should never be given authority to dictate which faction will be rewarded and which faction will be disappointed or angered.
John Jay usually wrote under the pseudonym 'Publius":
. . .Thus, Publius argues that self-government is possible and indeed desirable, but only under certain conditions. The two most important conditions are properly structured governing institutions and a virtuous people.
Government is structured properly when it conforms to the great principles newly discovered by political science: checks and balances, separation of powers, the scheme of representation, the division of political authority between the national and state governments, and the like. These structures divide political power so as to make unlikely the concentration of too much power in one person or office, and to make government responsive to the will of the people, as contrasted with the immediate expression of every caprice and passion of the people. They also enlist the self-interest of the elected representative in the support of those very constitutional structures that are intended to secure our rights. . . .
. . . .But what are the virtues that pertain specifically to the president? Publius says that, whereas it is the work of the legislative branch to deliberate--that is, to consider what laws should be passed--and of the judicial branch to judge whether laws or actions conform to the Constitution, it is the work of the executive branch to carry out the will of the people, as expressed in acts of legislation, or as required by political necessities, such as domestic disasters, or foreign attack. Accordingly, the president acts in behalf of all the people for their common good. "Talents for low intrigue," writes Publius in Federalist 68, "and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States."
Thus, the president must have those qualities-dedication to the public good, for example-that earn the "esteem and confidence of the whole union." . . . .
I agree. Which is why I am strongly in favor of returning the power and the rights to the people instead of continuing to allow big government to whittle away at them until they are unrecognizable. And though I am not yet convinced that Michelsen has hit upon the correct solution, at least he has offered one to discuss.
You're the only one assigning values to SCOTUS rulings. I simply explained why human rights are non negotiable.And yet there remains broad divides and huge resentment and almost no cultural agreement on much of anything. So we're doing something wrong. I think giving the power back to the states and the people probably won't make us agree on any more topics, but it will at least make us more tolerant of each other and more likely to allow everybody to do their own thing in the way that they deem best. And we will probably start looking for candidates that we can respect and admire and trust again instead of most people voting strict party lines in retaliation against the other party.
Allowing intolerance and persecution to stand is not acceptable.
If you're Chevron and you have a dynamite office manager who really knows how to guide a staff or a roughneck who knows how to motivate a crew and you want to send him/her to another state to improve an office or under-producing well, you'd like to be able to do that without these persons having qualms about whether their lifestyle choices would be breaking the law in that state. So, because of some bizarre action by the legislature, Chevron misses out on the opportunity to improve their business.
Or, if you need open heart surgery and the leading specialist is homosexual and chooses not to fly to Texas where the law could be made to lynch "fags" I guess you'll just die or rely on a less-skilled surgeon?
Or, as political winds change, what was acceptable in 2015 is suddenly outlawed in 2020..I guess you will just have to move away or rely on the mercy of the newly installed regime to be "accepted"....
And if that new regime is not happy with you and your lesbian lover raising your child...can they take your kid away from you?
This is why human rights should never be put to popular vote.
This thread is not about marriage laws, but only whether a small minority in the federal government should dictate them or whether that should be left to the states and people themselves to decide. Nor was this country ever designed to be organized, structured, and administrated in a way that pleases Foxfyre but not Candy Corn or that pleases Candy Corn and not Foxfyre.
The problem that comes when government is given power to dictate what is 'right and wrong', what is 'good and evil', who will be the winners and who will be the losers, as much as half the people or more will be unhappy with government's judgment about that.
John Jay's Federalist papers are a fascinating read about the dangers of government supporting this faction or that faction that will always be present amidst a free people. And since the federal government is the government of all the people, the federal government should never be given authority to dictate which faction will be rewarded and which faction will be disappointed or angered.
John Jay usually wrote under the pseudonym 'Publius":
. . .Thus, Publius argues that self-government is possible and indeed desirable, but only under certain conditions. The two most important conditions are properly structured governing institutions and a virtuous people.
Government is structured properly when it conforms to the great principles newly discovered by political science: checks and balances, separation of powers, the scheme of representation, the division of political authority between the national and state governments, and the like. These structures divide political power so as to make unlikely the concentration of too much power in one person or office, and to make government responsive to the will of the people, as contrasted with the immediate expression of every caprice and passion of the people. They also enlist the self-interest of the elected representative in the support of those very constitutional structures that are intended to secure our rights. . . .
. . . .But what are the virtues that pertain specifically to the president? Publius says that, whereas it is the work of the legislative branch to deliberate--that is, to consider what laws should be passed--and of the judicial branch to judge whether laws or actions conform to the Constitution, it is the work of the executive branch to carry out the will of the people, as expressed in acts of legislation, or as required by political necessities, such as domestic disasters, or foreign attack. Accordingly, the president acts in behalf of all the people for their common good. "Talents for low intrigue," writes Publius in Federalist 68, "and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States."
Thus, the president must have those qualities-dedication to the public good, for example-that earn the "esteem and confidence of the whole union." . . . .
I agree. Which is why I am strongly in favor of returning the power and the rights to the people instead of continuing to allow big government to whittle away at them until they are unrecognizable. And though I am not yet convinced that Michelsen has hit upon the correct solution, at least he has offered one to discuss.
The people have the power. The vote. There is nothing to return.
and none of this points to an electorate having a more direct say having worse outcomes..... Votes are different than polls, polls have been and are manipulated. Votes generally generate more serious public discussion.
Votes could generate more serious public discussion if allowed to. Voting in the US is manipulated. I'm not talking fraud here, I'm talking advertising people to death and giving people what the rich want the voters to hear, rather than the truth.
Politics in the US is weird, compared to politics in other countries.
Very few countries in the world have a large part of the electorate who wish richer people (not themselves) to pay less taxes. Why? I mean, seriously why would a poorer person want this other than if they're too stupid to have their own thoughts and take in what they're told.
Yeah, I understand that point of view. However I also thing this will just be hijacked by certain political groups, especially right wing Christians, for their own purpose.a national initiative is probably the only hope of ever getting meaningful reforms like you talked about passed. Washington is too corrupt to reform itself.
You talk PR on a UK forum and everyone's interested. You talk PR on a US forum and everyone's like "What's PR, talk English, I don't know what this is and am too stupid to look it up on the internet now go away".
I don't get it.
The UK had a vote for AV, which is a slightly fairer way of doing FPTP UK/US style voting. It was rejected because the big parties didn't want it, and they basically spent their whole time telling people why it was bad.
You're the only one assigning values to SCOTUS rulings. I simply explained why human rights are non negotiable.Allowing intolerance and persecution to stand is not acceptable.
If you're Chevron and you have a dynamite office manager who really knows how to guide a staff or a roughneck who knows how to motivate a crew and you want to send him/her to another state to improve an office or under-producing well, you'd like to be able to do that without these persons having qualms about whether their lifestyle choices would be breaking the law in that state. So, because of some bizarre action by the legislature, Chevron misses out on the opportunity to improve their business.
Or, if you need open heart surgery and the leading specialist is homosexual and chooses not to fly to Texas where the law could be made to lynch "fags" I guess you'll just die or rely on a less-skilled surgeon?
Or, as political winds change, what was acceptable in 2015 is suddenly outlawed in 2020..I guess you will just have to move away or rely on the mercy of the newly installed regime to be "accepted"....
And if that new regime is not happy with you and your lesbian lover raising your child...can they take your kid away from you?
This is why human rights should never be put to popular vote.
This thread is not about marriage laws, but only whether a small minority in the federal government should dictate them or whether that should be left to the states and people themselves to decide. Nor was this country ever designed to be organized, structured, and administrated in a way that pleases Foxfyre but not Candy Corn or that pleases Candy Corn and not Foxfyre.
The problem that comes when government is given power to dictate what is 'right and wrong', what is 'good and evil', who will be the winners and who will be the losers, as much as half the people or more will be unhappy with government's judgment about that.
John Jay's Federalist papers are a fascinating read about the dangers of government supporting this faction or that faction that will always be present amidst a free people. And since the federal government is the government of all the people, the federal government should never be given authority to dictate which faction will be rewarded and which faction will be disappointed or angered.
John Jay usually wrote under the pseudonym 'Publius":
. . .Thus, Publius argues that self-government is possible and indeed desirable, but only under certain conditions. The two most important conditions are properly structured governing institutions and a virtuous people.
Government is structured properly when it conforms to the great principles newly discovered by political science: checks and balances, separation of powers, the scheme of representation, the division of political authority between the national and state governments, and the like. These structures divide political power so as to make unlikely the concentration of too much power in one person or office, and to make government responsive to the will of the people, as contrasted with the immediate expression of every caprice and passion of the people. They also enlist the self-interest of the elected representative in the support of those very constitutional structures that are intended to secure our rights. . . .
. . . .But what are the virtues that pertain specifically to the president? Publius says that, whereas it is the work of the legislative branch to deliberate--that is, to consider what laws should be passed--and of the judicial branch to judge whether laws or actions conform to the Constitution, it is the work of the executive branch to carry out the will of the people, as expressed in acts of legislation, or as required by political necessities, such as domestic disasters, or foreign attack. Accordingly, the president acts in behalf of all the people for their common good. "Talents for low intrigue," writes Publius in Federalist 68, "and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States."
Thus, the president must have those qualities-dedication to the public good, for example-that earn the "esteem and confidence of the whole union." . . . .
I agree. Which is why I am strongly in favor of returning the power and the rights to the people instead of continuing to allow big government to whittle away at them until they are unrecognizable. And though I am not yet convinced that Michelsen has hit upon the correct solution, at least he has offered one to discuss.
The people have the power. The vote. There is nothing to return.
Your opinion on that is noted. I hope others who are less convinced that everything is as it should be will continue to chime in and discuss the proposal laid out in the OP.
They dont, even polling of likely voters Im pretty sure shows majority want higher taxes on the wealthy
actually I remember not liking the UK proposal also....cant remember why but the way it was structured I believe wasnt true to the intent of AV.
actually I remember not liking the UK proposal also....cant remember why but the way it was structured I believe wasnt true to the intent of AV.
One of the biggest reasons seemed to be that it wasn't change enough. People wanted PR, and if AV got in they thought that it would move away from that. Well clearly they ain't getting PR any time soon with the Tories in full power.
You're the only one assigning values to SCOTUS rulings. I simply explained why human rights are non negotiable.And yet there remains broad divides and huge resentment and almost no cultural agreement on much of anything. So we're doing something wrong. I think giving the power back to the states and the people probably won't make us agree on any more topics, but it will at least make us more tolerant of each other and more likely to allow everybody to do their own thing in the way that they deem best. And we will probably start looking for candidates that we can respect and admire and trust again instead of most people voting strict party lines in retaliation against the other party.
Allowing intolerance and persecution to stand is not acceptable.
If you're Chevron and you have a dynamite office manager who really knows how to guide a staff or a roughneck who knows how to motivate a crew and you want to send him/her to another state to improve an office or under-producing well, you'd like to be able to do that without these persons having qualms about whether their lifestyle choices would be breaking the law in that state. So, because of some bizarre action by the legislature, Chevron misses out on the opportunity to improve their business.
Or, if you need open heart surgery and the leading specialist is homosexual and chooses not to fly to Texas where the law could be made to lynch "fags" I guess you'll just die or rely on a less-skilled surgeon?
Or, as political winds change, what was acceptable in 2015 is suddenly outlawed in 2020..I guess you will just have to move away or rely on the mercy of the newly installed regime to be "accepted"....
And if that new regime is not happy with you and your lesbian lover raising your child...can they take your kid away from you?
This is why human rights should never be put to popular vote.
This thread is not about marriage laws, but only whether a small minority in the federal government should dictate them or whether that should be left to the states and people themselves to decide. Nor was this country ever designed to be organized, structured, and administrated in a way that pleases Foxfyre but not Candy Corn or that pleases Candy Corn and not Foxfyre.
The problem that comes when government is given power to dictate what is 'right and wrong', what is 'good and evil', who will be the winners and who will be the losers, as much as half the people or more will be unhappy with government's judgment about that.
John Jay's Federalist papers are a fascinating read about the dangers of government supporting this faction or that faction that will always be present amidst a free people. And since the federal government is the government of all the people, the federal government should never be given authority to dictate which faction will be rewarded and which faction will be disappointed or angered.
John Jay usually wrote under the pseudonym 'Publius":
. . .Thus, Publius argues that self-government is possible and indeed desirable, but only under certain conditions. The two most important conditions are properly structured governing institutions and a virtuous people.
Government is structured properly when it conforms to the great principles newly discovered by political science: checks and balances, separation of powers, the scheme of representation, the division of political authority between the national and state governments, and the like. These structures divide political power so as to make unlikely the concentration of too much power in one person or office, and to make government responsive to the will of the people, as contrasted with the immediate expression of every caprice and passion of the people. They also enlist the self-interest of the elected representative in the support of those very constitutional structures that are intended to secure our rights. . . .
. . . .But what are the virtues that pertain specifically to the president? Publius says that, whereas it is the work of the legislative branch to deliberate--that is, to consider what laws should be passed--and of the judicial branch to judge whether laws or actions conform to the Constitution, it is the work of the executive branch to carry out the will of the people, as expressed in acts of legislation, or as required by political necessities, such as domestic disasters, or foreign attack. Accordingly, the president acts in behalf of all the people for their common good. "Talents for low intrigue," writes Publius in Federalist 68, "and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States."
Thus, the president must have those qualities-dedication to the public good, for example-that earn the "esteem and confidence of the whole union." . . . .
I agree. Which is why I am strongly in favor of returning the power and the rights to the people instead of continuing to allow big government to whittle away at them until they are unrecognizable. And though I am not yet convinced that Michelsen has hit upon the correct solution, at least he has offered one to discuss.
The people have the power. The vote. There is nothing to return.
You're the only one assigning values to SCOTUS rulings. I simply explained why human rights are non negotiable.Allowing intolerance and persecution to stand is not acceptable.
If you're Chevron and you have a dynamite office manager who really knows how to guide a staff or a roughneck who knows how to motivate a crew and you want to send him/her to another state to improve an office or under-producing well, you'd like to be able to do that without these persons having qualms about whether their lifestyle choices would be breaking the law in that state. So, because of some bizarre action by the legislature, Chevron misses out on the opportunity to improve their business.
Or, if you need open heart surgery and the leading specialist is homosexual and chooses not to fly to Texas where the law could be made to lynch "fags" I guess you'll just die or rely on a less-skilled surgeon?
Or, as political winds change, what was acceptable in 2015 is suddenly outlawed in 2020..I guess you will just have to move away or rely on the mercy of the newly installed regime to be "accepted"....
And if that new regime is not happy with you and your lesbian lover raising your child...can they take your kid away from you?
This is why human rights should never be put to popular vote.
This thread is not about marriage laws, but only whether a small minority in the federal government should dictate them or whether that should be left to the states and people themselves to decide. Nor was this country ever designed to be organized, structured, and administrated in a way that pleases Foxfyre but not Candy Corn or that pleases Candy Corn and not Foxfyre.
The problem that comes when government is given power to dictate what is 'right and wrong', what is 'good and evil', who will be the winners and who will be the losers, as much as half the people or more will be unhappy with government's judgment about that.
John Jay's Federalist papers are a fascinating read about the dangers of government supporting this faction or that faction that will always be present amidst a free people. And since the federal government is the government of all the people, the federal government should never be given authority to dictate which faction will be rewarded and which faction will be disappointed or angered.
John Jay usually wrote under the pseudonym 'Publius":
. . .Thus, Publius argues that self-government is possible and indeed desirable, but only under certain conditions. The two most important conditions are properly structured governing institutions and a virtuous people.
Government is structured properly when it conforms to the great principles newly discovered by political science: checks and balances, separation of powers, the scheme of representation, the division of political authority between the national and state governments, and the like. These structures divide political power so as to make unlikely the concentration of too much power in one person or office, and to make government responsive to the will of the people, as contrasted with the immediate expression of every caprice and passion of the people. They also enlist the self-interest of the elected representative in the support of those very constitutional structures that are intended to secure our rights. . . .
. . . .But what are the virtues that pertain specifically to the president? Publius says that, whereas it is the work of the legislative branch to deliberate--that is, to consider what laws should be passed--and of the judicial branch to judge whether laws or actions conform to the Constitution, it is the work of the executive branch to carry out the will of the people, as expressed in acts of legislation, or as required by political necessities, such as domestic disasters, or foreign attack. Accordingly, the president acts in behalf of all the people for their common good. "Talents for low intrigue," writes Publius in Federalist 68, "and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States."
Thus, the president must have those qualities-dedication to the public good, for example-that earn the "esteem and confidence of the whole union." . . . .
I agree. Which is why I am strongly in favor of returning the power and the rights to the people instead of continuing to allow big government to whittle away at them until they are unrecognizable. And though I am not yet convinced that Michelsen has hit upon the correct solution, at least he has offered one to discuss.
The people have the power. The vote. There is nothing to return.
The vote is only as good as the people who receive it. When the people who receive it can do any damn thing they want to anybody, the vote is worthless.
You're the only one assigning values to SCOTUS rulings. I simply explained why human rights are non negotiable.This thread is not about marriage laws, but only whether a small minority in the federal government should dictate them or whether that should be left to the states and people themselves to decide. Nor was this country ever designed to be organized, structured, and administrated in a way that pleases Foxfyre but not Candy Corn or that pleases Candy Corn and not Foxfyre.
The problem that comes when government is given power to dictate what is 'right and wrong', what is 'good and evil', who will be the winners and who will be the losers, as much as half the people or more will be unhappy with government's judgment about that.
John Jay's Federalist papers are a fascinating read about the dangers of government supporting this faction or that faction that will always be present amidst a free people. And since the federal government is the government of all the people, the federal government should never be given authority to dictate which faction will be rewarded and which faction will be disappointed or angered.
John Jay usually wrote under the pseudonym 'Publius":
. . .Thus, Publius argues that self-government is possible and indeed desirable, but only under certain conditions. The two most important conditions are properly structured governing institutions and a virtuous people.
Government is structured properly when it conforms to the great principles newly discovered by political science: checks and balances, separation of powers, the scheme of representation, the division of political authority between the national and state governments, and the like. These structures divide political power so as to make unlikely the concentration of too much power in one person or office, and to make government responsive to the will of the people, as contrasted with the immediate expression of every caprice and passion of the people. They also enlist the self-interest of the elected representative in the support of those very constitutional structures that are intended to secure our rights. . . .
. . . .But what are the virtues that pertain specifically to the president? Publius says that, whereas it is the work of the legislative branch to deliberate--that is, to consider what laws should be passed--and of the judicial branch to judge whether laws or actions conform to the Constitution, it is the work of the executive branch to carry out the will of the people, as expressed in acts of legislation, or as required by political necessities, such as domestic disasters, or foreign attack. Accordingly, the president acts in behalf of all the people for their common good. "Talents for low intrigue," writes Publius in Federalist 68, "and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States."
Thus, the president must have those qualities-dedication to the public good, for example-that earn the "esteem and confidence of the whole union." . . . .
I agree. Which is why I am strongly in favor of returning the power and the rights to the people instead of continuing to allow big government to whittle away at them until they are unrecognizable. And though I am not yet convinced that Michelsen has hit upon the correct solution, at least he has offered one to discuss.
The people have the power. The vote. There is nothing to return.
The vote is only as good as the people who receive it. When the people who receive it can do any damn thing they want to anybody, the vote is worthless.
And that, obviously, is in no way, shape, or form is the case today. Nor was it the case yesterday nor will it be tomorrow.
