America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[Procrustes Stretched]

Skylar The amendments at issue forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights. The 14th empowered the national government to force the states to respect what they were supposed to in the first place. Battles between Harlan and Holmes and Taney and others aside, there were court decisions and dissents all over the place.

Show us your quote saying that. Here it is:

Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. Bill of Rights Institute Bill of Rights

Highlight where it says that the amendments at issue forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights. You'll find you're not quoting the Bill of Rights Institute. You're quoting yourself. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. The question was directly asked and answered by the USSC about a dozen years shy of 2 centuries ago. And they explicitly contradict your assertion that the Bill of Rights limited the States:

We are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the [32 U.S. 243, 251] government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states

Barron V. Baltimore 1833

FindLaw Cases and Codes

And it wasn't just the 5th amendment. It was the entire Bill of Rights that the USSC found to be inapplicable to the States:

These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Barron V. Baltimore 1833

FindLaw Cases and Codes

They couldn't be clearer. The States were free to violate the Bill of Rights if they saw fit and the Federal Government had no jurisdiction to stop them. Congressman John Bingham, one of the primary architects of the 14th amendment actually read many of these passages from Barron v. Baltimore when arguing in congress for the need of a 14th amendment.

Bingham was of the opinion that had the Federal Government had the authority to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the States, that the civil war never would have happened. While recognizing that the constitution as the founders wrote it didn't provide that authority. Offering yet another voice in the chorus of the founder's lack having dire consequences.

And yet another example of why our constitution is so utterly, obviously, and inescapably better than that of the founders. As we corrected the fundamental flaws of their constitution by changing it. And empowering the US constitution with the authority that per Congressman Bingham, standing in the ashes of the Civil War, could have prevented hundreds of thousands of American deaths had the founders the foresight or capacity to enact it within their constitution.

The amendments at issue (after 1868) that forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights include the 14th. Before that the courts ruled protections in the Bill of Rights limited only the actions of the federal government.

Under other interpretations the 14th empowered the national government to force the states to respect what they were supposed to in the first place. It was argued the courts were wrong before the 14th

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They created it, and under that creation they left ways to change it over time.

They made it wrong. Their conception of rights was fundamentally and inescapably flawed. You don't even disagree with me. You seem to rightly recognize that 'all men are created equal' and slavery cannot coexist rationally, morally, or or anything but practically. They are mutually exclusive positions that contradict one another.

They are the philosophical foundation upon which our nation was built by the founders. Which is a hypocritical, inconsistent and unsustainable house of cards that must fall.

And did. It was called the Civil War. The survivors of which recognizes that had the constitution included the authority for the Federal government to protect the rights of citizens against State intrusion, that the Civil War never would have happened. With the survivors equally recognizing that such authority didn't exist in the constitution as the founders wrote it.

And that it must be added.

I agree with you completely that the founders were dealing with the context of their age. That they didn't invent the institution of slavery, they merely acted within the system as it existed. But they knew of the fundamental inconsistencies of their position. Washington freed his slaves. Jefferson wrestled with the hypocrisy most of his life. And Hamilton flat out refused to ever own a slave as if found it morally reprehensible. And it was well understood that this issue would eventually come to a head, as it was unsustainable.

There was a clear moral awareness of how wrong it was. How flawed it was. How astonishingly inconsistent it was. And how it could not last as it was.

As people evolve, so does the ideals of the people.

I agree that people evolve. And we are more evolved in our understanding of rights, freedom and who should wield the sword of suffrage than the founders ever were. Our constitution and caselaw reflects that evolution, reflects that vastly superior application of freedom, the vastly greater moral and philosophical consistency, the significantly more viable and sustainable system that is profoundly more just.

Which is why I say our constitution is better. A lot better. We rock!

Their amended constitution. Not ours. And it was amended far before you or I came along.

To say "our" constitution we'd have to rewrite one. Fat chance of anyone supporting that notion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Skylar there appears to be misunderstanding caused by my posting on multiple threads and places.

my apologies for that part

as for the rest, your silly notion that we are better than those before us is hubris at it's worst. We are no better than the framers or the Nazis. We are human beings with all that entails. Who really knows what you would have done if you lived in the past

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

Oh I'm sorry the video left you "Discombobulated," but perhaps that's why you call yourself that.

Well I'm afraid it's already dumbed down so that a first grader could understand it so, you'll just have to be embarrassed for being so stupid.

Perhaps you're just a little too slow to understand that democracy is one component of a constitutional republic......they are not mutually exclusive.

Of course not. However, like "freedom of religion" being bastardized into freedom FROM religion, you lefties have a nasty little habit of once getting hold of something you take it and run with it...Meaning, you cannot be trusted.
Your brand of progress has left a trail of train wrecks symbolized by unintended consequences.

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

For well over 60 years liberals have fought in defense of the rights of individuals against that of government overreach and excess – from ending segregation and discrimination in the 1950s (Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Hernandez v. Texas (1954)) to defending the rights of gay Americans today (Lawrence v. Texas (2003), US v. Windsor (2013)).

And every step of the way, case after case, court battle after court battle, decade after decade, it was conservatives who fought against those efforts to allow every American to realize his comprehensive civil rights. Indeed, conservatives continue to seek to expand the power and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty, by denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, women their privacy rights, and minorities their voting rights.

Given this shameful history of opposition to the rights of all citizens, you and others on the right are in no position to pass judgment on anyone.

 

[Contumacious]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

Oh I'm sorry the video left you "Discombobulated," but perhaps that's why you call yourself that.

Well I'm afraid it's already dumbed down so that a first grader could understand it so, you'll just have to be embarrassed for being so stupid.

Perhaps you're just a little too slow to understand that democracy is one component of a constitutional republic......they are not mutually exclusive.

One component of a Constitutional Republic


Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Splain.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

lol, another conservative endorses undemocratic government.

You know why the right wants undemocratic government? Because they know their pathetic minority can never inspire enough popular support to be in the majority in a democratic government.

just like progressives, conservatives want more democracy when they think they have the majority. The Bill of Rights exists in many ways as to protect a minority from the majority

Conservatives want to push authority down to smaller balkanized state governments mainly so they can dodge the rights protected by the Constitution.

In essence, yes.

And many on the right attempt to hide their unwarranted fear of diversity and dissent behind the facade of 'states' rights,' where in fact our Constitutional Republic protects the rights of all citizens residing within the states, where one's status as an American citizen is paramount, as the states are subordinate to those rights of National citizenship, where one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and where the majority of a given state or jurisdiction lacks the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

Conservatives can't have it both ways: they can't decry a Federal court striking down a state's measure violating the 14th Amendment right of gay Americans to marry as 'ignoring' the 'will of the people,' yet at the same time seek to have a Federal court invalidate a state measure prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, also reflecting the 'will of the people.'

 

[SwimExpert]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

No, it took the government's say out of it. The states still have the same representation. Let's not also forget that the amendment was ratified by the legislatures of no less than 3/4s of the states.

 

[SwimExpert]

the senate was for the voice of the state chosen by the state

The people are the state.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the senate was for the voice of the state chosen by the state

The people are the state.

yes which elected senators through

their state senates which they voted for

 

[jon_berzerk]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

No, it took the government's say out of it. The states still have the same representation. Let's not also forget that the amendment was ratified by the legislatures of no less than 3/4s of the states.

No, it took the government's say out of it


yes exactly

it took the state governments say out of it like i said

"gutted the states say"

so i really do not know what you are trying to argue

i am aware that it was amended and ratified that is not the issue

 

[NYcarbineer]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

lol, statist.

The People of each state get to pick their senators. What is undemocratic about that?

i dont know what is so funny about that

the senate was for the voice of the state chosen by the state

actually there is no need for a senate at this point since we already

elect reps by popular vote

Wrong. The purpose of the senate is to give equal representation to each state regardless of the state's population.

That doesn't change whether the senators are directly or indirectly elected.

 

[peach174]

yep, the numbers in themselves are the same, but it is not really about the actual number(s). It is about what the numbers represent. Step back and maybe you will see the forest ... (forest for the trees?)

What part of 'one involves the federal government and the other doesn't' makes you think I don't understand the processes involved?

He is trying to make some gotcha point about it having to be a super majority.
Dante loves word games.

really? You're wrong again. Facts matter as do distinctions for without each, we get more dolts like you

I agree with facts and distinctions that is what I have done.
I am not the only one here that has not been taught by a lefty history professor, like you have that twists our history.
And you have a real problem with anyone who has a different point of view other than your own.
I put up part of an actual letter from Ben Franklin from 1766 in more of it's context since you said it was taken out of context and then you insult.
So who is really the dolt?

Crazy people always think they are the only ones who _____(fill in the blank)_____.

I actually caused quite a sensation and scandal in a Lefty history class when I told minorities they should fear popular democracy more than I should. You are a class A dolt if you think studying and spouting right wing versions of history is any different than lefties with a progressive axe to grind.

I wasn't referring to the context of THE LETTER. geeze, how can one not insult you at times?

I have seen your attempts to present facts as opposed to opinion and have enjoyed it, but you stray into partisanship with it while accusing others of same

I bring in progressivism which is changing our government into collectivism from individualism and being a republic into a social democracy.
Freedom is a very precious thing to have and progressives think that they need to change that and rule Americans because they know what's best for us. Arrogance like that never wins. History has proven it.
One example of many things that is happening with progressive ideology is -
Gays should have their rights and freedoms because of our constitution, but gays should not impose their lifestyle onto others like they are trying to do.
Gays would have gotten their rights & freedom much sooner if they had not tried to force their lifestyle onto the majority of Americans.
Example - gays have the constitutional right to form their own boy scouts, not force themselves into straight boy scouts.
Gays have the right to open their own bakeries for wedding cakes. Not forcing straight bakeries to bake their cake's That is totally opposite of freedom.
This is what progressivism is doing to this country.
It's turning us into what we fought the Revolutionary War over where the elites ruled over the majority.

 

[peach174]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

lol, statist.

The People of each state get to pick their senators. What is undemocratic about that?

i dont know what is so funny about that

the senate was for the voice of the state chosen by the state

actually there is no need for a senate at this point since we already

elect reps by popular vote

Wrong. The purpose of the senate is to give equal representation to each state regardless of the state's population.

That doesn't change whether the senators are directly or indirectly elected.

When the Senate was changed and is now elected by the people, it turns it into the house of representatives and the Senators are now under the voice of the people, not the interest of their States.
The amendment changed us from a Republic towards a Democracy and made the Senate equal to the House.

 

[jon_berzerk]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

lol, statist.

The People of each state get to pick their senators. What is undemocratic about that?

i dont know what is so funny about that

the senate was for the voice of the state chosen by the state

actually there is no need for a senate at this point since we already

elect reps by popular vote

Wrong. The purpose of the senate is to give equal representation to each state regardless of the state's population.

That doesn't change whether the senators are directly or indirectly elected.

The purpose of the senate is to give equal representation to each state

the STATES interest

that is why the state legislatures chose them

the guise of asking for this amendment was to get a handle on corruption

in the government

which as we can see today

the amendment certainly failed

it may well be time to repeal the amendment

and possibly add in a few term limits

 

[Toro]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

Of course not. A true democracy is inconsistent and incompatible with the concepts of God given rights, freedom and liberty

No it's not. Quite the opposite. You can't be free if you can't chose who governs you.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

Of course not. A true democracy is inconsistent and incompatible with the concepts of God given rights, freedom and liberty

No it's not. Quite the opposite. You can't be free if you can't chose who governs you.

in a democracy the mob determines who is going to govern you

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Does it matter more what America is supposed to be, or what it IS today?
Today, America is a cleptocracy, some say plutocracy. Whichever - we are certainly not a Democratic Republic or Constitutional Republic.
Again, which matters most - what we label it to be - or what it truly is?

 

[zeke]

Does it matter more what America is supposed to be, or what it IS today?
Today, America is a cleptocracy, some say plutocracy. Whichever - we are certainly not a Democratic Republic or Constitutional Republic.

Good point. What is is today is the important part. I vote for a plutocracy. And it is not the worst form of government to live under. Our plutocrats don't really seem to care one way or the other what the rest of us do, so long as the plutocrats get to do what it is they want to do.

When the plutocrats desires start really hurting millions of other Americans, that is when the real trouble will start.

Hopefully our plutocrats will not get to greedy. They have it real real good right now. Never better for them actually.

 

[Toro]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

Of course not. A true democracy is inconsistent and incompatible with the concepts of God given rights, freedom and liberty

No it's not. Quite the opposite. You can't be free if you can't chose who governs you.

in a democracy the mob determines who is going to govern you

Lack of democracy is tyranny.

It's why dictators and tyrants hate democracy.

 

[peach174]

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

lol, statist.

The People of each state get to pick their senators. What is undemocratic about that?

i dont know what is so funny about that

the senate was for the voice of the state chosen by the state

actually there is no need for a senate at this point since we already

elect reps by popular vote

Wrong. The purpose of the senate is to give equal representation to each state regardless of the state's population.

That doesn't change whether the senators are directly or indirectly elected.

The purpose of the senate is to give equal representation to each state

the STATES interest

that is why the state legislatures chose them

the guise of asking for this amendment was to get a handle on corruption

in the government

which as we can see today

the amendment certainly failed

it may well be time to repeal the amendment

and possibly add in a few term limits

If we repeal the amendment what should take it's place?
If we go back to the State Legislatures electing them, then we might get the same thing that caused us to have the 17th amendment in the first place.
The State Legislatures were fighting plus and the North and South were fighting plus the corruption and some States didn't have State Senators for one or two years because of that.
Because of the Civil War, the North and South fighting is now eliminated, but the Dem's and Repub's would still have the fighting of who to elect and then it would switch the corruption from Washington back to the State legislature.