Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Foxfyre]

You're the only one assigning values to SCOTUS rulings. I simply explained why human rights are non negotiable.

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.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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 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.

I disagree.

It's not that simple. Voting is only meaningful if it truly represents the will of the people.

Now consider the fact that in a town of 15,000 people in a state of 3,000,000 people, your vote for mayor is more powerful and meaningful than your vote for governor. And your vote for governor is more powerful than your vote for the POTUS (and even with the elector college...there is still truth to my statement).

So the will of your small city may be swallowed up in the will of your state which could be swallowed up in the will of the country.

Both can exist if you keep the issues placed accordingly.

While I don't agree with Fox on some of her solutions (or claims), I do believe that it is better to keep it closer to home.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not asking for anybody to agree with me. The thread topic is not about agreeing with Foxfyre. The thread topic is whether or not we agree with Michelsen's proposed amendment and why or why not.

Of course those who think the government functions as intended and as it should will reject Michelsen's amendment in total and will declare it evil, wrongheaded, or whatever characterization they put on it.

Those who don't think government functions as intended and/or as it should at least are giving some thought to the concept Michelsen offered.

One does not have to agree with another's point of view in order to find it interesting or ripe with possibilities.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am not asking for anybody to agree with me. The thread topic is not about agreeing with Foxfyre. The thread topic is whether or not we agree with Michelsen's proposed amendment and why or why not.

Of course those who think the government functions as intended and as it should will reject Michelsen's amendment in total and will declare it evil, wrongheaded, or whatever characterization they put on it.

Those who don't think government functions as intended and/or as it should at least are giving some thought to the concept Michelsen offered.

One does not have to agree with another's point of view in order to find it interesting or ripe with possibilities.

I am not sure what post you are referencing. I was disagreeing with CC....just so we are clear.

Michelsen's proposed amendment, as has been discussed, is an effort to "restore" some of what many feel was lost.

The primary area of disagreement is in what government "was intended" to do. Let's be very clear....we are talking federal government. The use of the word government can mean many things.

For those who feel it does not function as intended....Michelsen's proposal an option.....

In my estimation...what is more important is that it is a response to a supposed problem.

C Clayton Jones has said government functions as intended. I am working on my response....but it basically says not by a long shot.

But that is the fundamental issue.

As I said....once those lines have been defined.....the proposed amendment is one option.

I've already stated that we don't need it. We simply need to repeal the 17th and move more towards a decentralized federal government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

But who gets to decide what the human rights will be? Will you allow me to have the power to decide that? I sure would not consent to let a lot of people here decide that because they are highly selective in what they consider human rights and what are not.

At least within your own state you can push for whatever human rights you believe are appropriate without forcing your personal opinion about that onto everybody else. (We are speaking of the generic 'you' here of course.) But when the federal government gets it wrong, then many people are denied their rights because of wrong headed ideas of what rights others should have.

For example--and no I do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of this, but am only using this as an example--if one group believes there is a human right for insurance companies to provide contraceptives and that becomes the law of the land, then that denies everybody else the right to not incur that expense, most especially if they have moral objections to it. So who should have the power to decide what is and is not moral? And what everybody will be forced to do in the interest of 'human rights.'

Again as illustration only, I personally think that if one school system chooses to teach intelligent design in their science classes, that is a human right--the right to believe and embrace one's own truths so long as that is not forced upon other school systems who do not believe or embrace the same truth. Likewise the school system that chooses not to teach intelligent design as science or anything else has the human right to not do that, but should not be able to tell the next school district over that they cannot either.

And if you object to having to leave your state in order to acquire the sociopolitical status that you consider acceptable, the how can you not object to a person having to leave their country to acquire a sociopolitical status they find acceptable?

 

[candycorn]

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.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

But who gets to decide what the human rights will be? Will you allow me to have the power to decide that? I sure would not consent to let a lot of people here decide that because they are highly selective in what they consider human rights and what are not.

At least within your own state you can push for whatever human rights you believe are appropriate without forcing your personal opinion about that onto everybody else. (We are speaking of the generic 'you' here of course.) But when the federal government gets it wrong, then many people are denied their rights because of wrong headed ideas of what rights others should have.

Such as?

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not asking for anybody to agree with me. The thread topic is not about agreeing with Foxfyre. The thread topic is whether or not we agree with Michelsen's proposed amendment and why or why not.

Of course those who think the government functions as intended and as it should will reject Michelsen's amendment in total and will declare it evil, wrongheaded, or whatever characterization they put on it.

Those who don't think government functions as intended and/or as it should at least are giving some thought to the concept Michelsen offered.

One does not have to agree with another's point of view in order to find it interesting or ripe with possibilities.

I am not sure what post you are referencing. I was disagreeing with CC....just so we are clear.

Michelsen's proposed amendment, as has been discussed, is an effort to "restore" some of what many feel was lost.

The primary area of disagreement is in what government "was intended" to do. Let's be very clear....we are talking federal government. The use of the word government can mean many things.

For those who feel it does not function as intended....Michelsen's proposal an option.....

In my estimation...what is more important is that it is a response to a supposed problem.

C Clayton Jones has said government functions as intended. I am working on my response....but it basically says not by a long shot.

But that is the fundamental issue.

As I said....once those lines have been defined.....the proposed amendment is one option.

I've already stated that we don't need it. We simply need to repeal the 17th and move more towards a decentralized federal government.

In Post #302 you were disagreeing with me, which prompted my comment. It was not a criticism but in a thread where the rules require that we discuss a concept or ideas rather than what anybody might think about that concept or those ideas, whether or not anybody agrees with me or anybody else is irrelavent.

Certainly a repeal of the 17th amendment might be helpful but the self serving cancer of the professional politician is so deeply imbedded into the system now, that I don't know whether fixing one house of Congress would help all that much. It would not prevent the POTUS from issuing illegal executive orders. It would not prevent SCOTUS from issuing unconstitutional opinons. And it would not remedy the gridlock if we have a House unwilling to work with a less politically motivated Senate.

So if we implement Michelsen's proposed amendment, then government is immediately forced to represent all the people and work to find areas of consensus and agreement instead of blugeoning laws, rules, regs, and rulings through with ultra thin majorities.

 

[Foxfyre]

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

But who gets to decide what the human rights will be? Will you allow me to have the power to decide that? I sure would not consent to let a lot of people here decide that because they are highly selective in what they consider human rights and what are not.

At least within your own state you can push for whatever human rights you believe are appropriate without forcing your personal opinion about that onto everybody else. (We are speaking of the generic 'you' here of course.) But when the federal government gets it wrong, then many people are denied their rights because of wrong headed ideas of what rights others should have.

Such as?

In post #307 I gave you several potential 'such as' examples but we could no doubt add hundreds to those several.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

The ability for a state to have it's own soveriegnty was the fundamental basis for the Constitution. The Constitution was a document intended to limit the federal government.

 

[dcraelin]

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

The ability for a state to have it's own soveriegnty was the fundamental basis for the Constitution. The Constitution was a document intended to limit the federal government.

well no it actually wasnt, there was a more limited government in place, the Articles of Confederation. AND the bill of rights were amendments that weren't original to the Constitution.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

The ability for a state to have it's own soveriegnty was the fundamental basis for the Constitution. The Constitution was a document intended to limit the federal government.

well no it actually wasnt, there was a more limited government in place, the Articles of Confederation. AND the bill of rights were amendments that weren't original to the Constitution.

What wasn't ?

The limited government that was put in place of the Constitution had the power to do what it empowered to do by the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave no authority to the Federal Government.

It doesn't take much to realize that the people were not willing to throw in the idea of state sovereignty as evidenced by the resistance to the Constitution and the selling job required by Madison & Co. in the Federalist Papers. Now, either our fourth president was a liar or he meant what he wrote when he stated:

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.

*********************

Now while I don't get along with this whole nullification garbage or secession, I do believe that we were to have a limited federal government...again as Madison stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

 

[dcraelin]

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

The ability for a state to have it's own soveriegnty was the fundamental basis for the Constitution. The Constitution was a document intended to limit the federal government.

well no it actually wasnt, there was a more limited government in place, the Articles of Confederation. AND the bill of rights were amendments that weren't original to the Constitution.

What wasn't ?

The limited government that was put in place of the Constitution had the power to do what it empowered to do by the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave no authority to the Federal Government.

It doesn't take much to realize that the people were not willing to throw in the idea of state sovereignty as evidenced by the resistance to the Constitution and the selling job required by Madison & Co. in the Federalist Papers. Now, either our fourth president was a liar or he meant what he wrote when he stated:

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.

*********************

Now while I don't get along with this whole nullification garbage or secession, I do believe that we were to have a limited federal government...again as Madison stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

you yourself called the federalist a selling job. The ideas in the federalist were almost immediately rejected by its own writers when they Okay-ed a national bank in one of the first sessions of the new Congress.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

 

[candycorn]

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Can you please explain what this post is supposed to mean ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

You are two for two.

If you can't do better than this, please don't respond.