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

[Procrustes Stretched]

dcraelin

I believe the five republicans on the Supreme Court have said we may not do that with our own elections.

they shoudl ahve looked on it from more of a states rights vieew...I thin it is more i line with the founders intent..than their "reasoning"

We have the framer's views on recall -- it's called elections.

States rights view of what? Senators were supposed to be above the recall of the mobocracy

But they were supposed to represent their states.....and someone said they could be easily recalled by state legislatures....

limiting contributions to in-state residences would be a way to focus on states interests

I'd have to look up the recall thing, but if it's factual I'd bet it was a high bar to pass, like a super majority.

Representing a state or it's people doesn't mean not voting your own conscience. If that were so we would have a government run by plebiscite and referendum. think Hitler and Nazi party

I see you on here defended the idea that we are a democracy...then you turn around and say that!!!....Hitler hated democracy....

he cetainly never used referendum or plebisite.....

Hitler used a form of direct/popular democracy to take over.

What in the world are you talking about?

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHALL
Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES



Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 -- Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on hisDictatorship but Opposition Is Doubled

Popular democracy breeds the type of democracy we saw during the Arab Spring. I for one loathed what would result -- proven on that one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

it is folks that didnt trust democracy that ushered in the nazis and hitler, he was appointed under anti-democratic "emergency rules"

It were the framers of the US Constitution that didn't trust democracy. Especially one you reference: Madison

Madison hedged his widely refered to opinion in the federalist...and lhe was using a definition no one before had used..on top of that I think, and historians do too, that he changed his mind basically...turning on the federalists.... with his helping create the first republican party

Madison and Federalism and the Federalist Party: Madison was a Federalist, but not a member of the latter Federalist Party. States rights is actually an argument over how federalism should work, not an argument against federalism. It's easy to get confused here.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The framers didn't trust democracy but did believe the people should be involved in government. It was the Age of Enlightenment The states did the democracy bit deciding who should be allowed to vote for House members. Over the years with education and the fear of democracy lessening states allowed more people to vote, amendments were passed and America became more democratic. Some state Constitutions allow even more democracy with the initiative, referendum and recall.
I think most political scientists label America a democratic-republic.
Incidentally "republic" has more than one definition and early on one meant, not a monarchy, and when Mrs. Powell asked Franklin the big question, she was asking, did the framers give us a king?

caveat: citizens, not the people.

Political Scientists are a useless breed. Democratic Republic and Representative Democracy are two common terms used

 

[dcraelin]

The outcome of prop8 says states cannot take away rights protected by the US Constitution.

In Massachusetts, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall basically said laws singling out individuals who are gay form entering into a marriage contract before the state were against the state constitution. She wrote people could remedy that by amending the state constitution to deny gays this right. This was beautiful in that if it had happened a suit in federal court would have ensued: a state law denying gays the marriage contract right would violate the federal constitution.

True popular democracy is an evil

the Prop 8 SC case decided nothing of the sort, it just made some lame irrational decision on standing....a dangerously dumb decisioon at that.

True popular democracy is not evil....it would in most cases be an improvement on the corruption we have now.

See my pic-quotes in gallery for more on the subject, especially the one with Jefferson who says the will of the majority is the only sure guardian of the rights of man"

I was speaking generally of the effect on the case. The standing decision was neither lame nor dumb

True popular democracy is evil. I remember being at Occupy meetings where that nonsense ruled. What they got was mayhem and disorder bordering on collective anarchy. Our framers were wise to steer clear of such imbecilic notions of direct and popular democracy. Nature abhors a vacuum and a vacuum is what demagogues and others step into when popular democracy reigns -- see Adolf Hitler and Nazi party

Jefferson is my least favorite founder and all I can say is thank our lucky stars he had little to do with framing the Constitution. I've read too much on Jefferson to think him an admirable and honorable man

I also do not like Jefferson, his believes were somewhat closer to some the elites that we have in both parties today, far from honorable or admirable.

your both wrong on Jefferson. without him and Madison turning our nation away fromt he corrupt federalists, we would have lost our independence and probably would have been reabsorbed into the british empire....he also expanded our country tremendously and ushered in what I think someone on here called the era of good feelings.

The prop 8 decision was tremendously dumb and dangerous....it basically said 7 million people dont have standing in federal court. It gave states atorney generals power to ignore their duty to theri constituents.

Good gawd man!

Jefferson was not a framer of the US Constitution. Jefferson's hypocrisy allowed him to expand the nation's territorially. Jefferson, the man who was vicious and effete in battle with his opponents - using proxies and going behind backs -- held others to principles he himself could never and never did himself, hold to.

Your presentation and analysis of the Prop8 court decision(s) is based wholly on partisan nitwittery and not the facts of the case.

We could always debate this Prop8 nonsense elsewhere

That he wasnt part of writing the consitution is a good thing....it was a sell-out of american prinicples in a number of ways....Patrick Henry and James MOnroe would agree

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

 

[dcraelin]

it is folks that didnt trust democracy that ushered in the nazis and hitler, he was appointed under anti-democratic "emergency rules"

It were the framers of the US Constitution that didn't trust democracy. Especially one you reference: Madison

Jefferson was a radical lunatic who had a lifelong fantasy of a world that never existed in Saxon England and he supported the worst excesses of the French evolution .

He also kept his own children in slavery. Contempt is too light a felling for this feline of man

dont know what your talking about regarding saxon england.....

i dont think he did supoprt the wordsst excesses of french republicans

....he freed his children at the age of 17 I believe...kind of like parents do today

 

[dcraelin]

dcraelin

they shoudl ahve looked on it from more of a states rights vieew...I thin it is more i line with the founders intent..than their "reasoning"

We have the framer's views on recall -- it's called elections.

States rights view of what? Senators were supposed to be above the recall of the mobocracy

But they were supposed to represent their states.....and someone said they could be easily recalled by state legislatures....

limiting contributions to in-state residences would be a way to focus on states interests

I'd have to look up the recall thing, but if it's factual I'd bet it was a high bar to pass, like a super majority.

Representing a state or it's people doesn't mean not voting your own conscience. If that were so we would have a government run by plebiscite and referendum. think Hitler and Nazi party

I see you on here defended the idea that we are a democracy...then you turn around and say that!!!....Hitler hated democracy....

he cetainly never used referendum or plebisite.....

Hitler used a form of direct/popular democracy to take over.

What in the world are you talking about?

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHALL
Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES



Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 -- Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on hisDictatorship but Opposition Is Doubled

Popular democracy breeds the type of democracy we saw during the Arab Spring. I for one loathed what would result -- proven on that one.

your giving the result of an "election" after hitler had already beeen ruling and consolidating power...illegitimate...

so you like the egyption regiem now....didnt they condemn 30 journalists to death or long prison terms some months back...didnt here how all that turned out..

as far as I know Morisi didnt do anything that bad

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

it is folks that didnt trust democracy that ushered in the nazis and hitler, he was appointed under anti-democratic "emergency rules"

It were the framers of the US Constitution that didn't trust democracy. Especially one you reference: Madison

Jefferson was a radical lunatic who had a lifelong fantasy of a world that never existed in Saxon England and he supported the worst excesses of the French evolution .

He also kept his own children in slavery. Contempt is too light a felling for this feline of man

dont know what your talking about regarding saxon england.....

i dont think he did supoprt the wordsst excesses of french republicans

....he freed his children at the age of 17 I believe...kind of like parents do today

Jefferson was thin-skinned. He was chided and made fun out of by friends and mocked by others for his childish beliefs -- myths, which he refused to walk away from. Jefferson believed there existed in pre Magna Cart England, a utopian Saxon ideal of liberty "self governing Saxon Boroughs" - (Rosen - The Supreme Court/Personalities- page 37). This is mentioned in many bios of the thin-skinned, little effeminate Tommie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

i dont think he did supoprt the wordsst excesses of french republicans

Jefferson was chided for that very support. In later life he tempered that support. Yet he is praised by imbeciles for his tree of liberty blood, comments which of course are themselves taken out of context

 

[francoHFW]

And courts are included in the constitutin, to protect us from a hateful majority. Not perfect, just the best so far. Too bad greedy idiot Pubs are perverting our country with big money, and a giant bs propaganda machine, hater dupes.

I agree with you alot franco...but I'd the courts are there to inforce the words of the Constitution which represent a greater nationwide majority.

Plenty of protections for minorities of all kinds in the constitution that courts uphold.

 

[dcraelin]

it is folks that didnt trust democracy that ushered in the nazis and hitler, he was appointed under anti-democratic "emergency rules"

It were the framers of the US Constitution that didn't trust democracy. Especially one you reference: Madison

Jefferson was a radical lunatic who had a lifelong fantasy of a world that never existed in Saxon England and he supported the worst excesses of the French evolution .

He also kept his own children in slavery. Contempt is too light a felling for this feline of man

dont know what your talking about regarding saxon england.....

i dont think he did supoprt the wordsst excesses of french republicans

....he freed his children at the age of 17 I believe...kind of like parents do today

Jefferson was thin-skinned. He was chided and made fun out of by friends and mocked by others for his childish beliefs -- myths, which he refused to walk away from. Jefferson believed there existed in pre Magna Cart England, a utopian Saxon ideal of liberty "self governing Saxon Boroughs" - (Rosen - The Supreme Court/Personalities- page 37). This is mentioned in many bios of the thin-skinned, little effeminate Tommie

I kind of doubt the author knows what hes talking about...ive read lot of stuff on jefferson...never read that....anyway i dont know how they were governed, do you? iceland had an early parliment type government as I understand.

I really dont care how effeminate you say he was you seem to be fixated on that

 

[dcraelin]

And courts re included in the constitutin, to protect us from a hateful majority. Not perfect, just the best so far. Too bad greedy idiot Pubs are perverting our country with big money, and a giant bs propaganda machine, hater dupes.

I agree with you alot franco...but I'd the courts are there to inforce the words of the Constitution which represent a greater nationwide majority.

Plenty of protections for minorities of all kinds in the constitution that courts uphold.

yes, but must emphasize that the constitution represents the majority views of the nation. at least at a point time

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the Prop 8 SC case decided nothing of the sort, it just made some lame irrational decision on standing....a dangerously dumb decisioon at that.

True popular democracy is not evil....it would in most cases be an improvement on the corruption we have now.

See my pic-quotes in gallery for more on the subject, especially the one with Jefferson who says the will of the majority is the only sure guardian of the rights of man"

I was speaking generally of the effect on the case. The standing decision was neither lame nor dumb

True popular democracy is evil. I remember being at Occupy meetings where that nonsense ruled. What they got was mayhem and disorder bordering on collective anarchy. Our framers were wise to steer clear of such imbecilic notions of direct and popular democracy. Nature abhors a vacuum and a vacuum is what demagogues and others step into when popular democracy reigns -- see Adolf Hitler and Nazi party

Jefferson is my least favorite founder and all I can say is thank our lucky stars he had little to do with framing the Constitution. I've read too much on Jefferson to think him an admirable and honorable man

I also do not like Jefferson, his believes were somewhat closer to some the elites that we have in both parties today, far from honorable or admirable.

your both wrong on Jefferson. without him and Madison turning our nation away fromt he corrupt federalists, we would have lost our independence and probably would have been reabsorbed into the british empire....he also expanded our country tremendously and ushered in what I think someone on here called the era of good feelings.

The prop 8 decision was tremendously dumb and dangerous....it basically said 7 million people dont have standing in federal court. It gave states atorney generals power to ignore their duty to theri constituents.

Good gawd man!

Jefferson was not a framer of the US Constitution. Jefferson's hypocrisy allowed him to expand the nation's territorially. Jefferson, the man who was vicious and effete in battle with his opponents - using proxies and going behind backs -- held others to principles he himself could never and never did himself, hold to.

Your presentation and analysis of the Prop8 court decision(s) is based wholly on partisan nitwittery and not the facts of the case.

We could always debate this Prop8 nonsense elsewhere

That he wasnt part of writing the consitution is a good thing....it was a sell-out of american prinicples in a number of ways....Patrick Henry and James MOnroe would agree

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

For the most part, Patrick Henry was an extremist and radical.

"George Washington and James Madison were leading supporters; Patrick Henry and George Mason were leading opponents."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And courts re included in the constitutin, to protect us from a hateful majority. Not perfect, just the best so far. Too bad greedy idiot Pubs are perverting our country with big money, and a giant bs propaganda machine, hater dupes.

I agree with you alot franco...but I'd the courts are there to inforce the words of the Constitution which represent a greater nationwide majority.

Plenty of protections for minorities of all kinds in the constitution that courts uphold.

yes, but must emphasize that the constitution represents the majority views of the nation. at least at a point time

Given enough time a well funded campaign could change that. This is why the framers made it so difficult to amend. The majority view is often a snapshot in time subject to the vagaries of life and the demagoguery that lives in any democracy

 

[dcraelin]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

no one wants to kill speech,...some like me...are interested in coming up with ways to make the boradcast of speech farier.

but structural changes to our legislative procedures would help our country also.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

it is folks that didnt trust democracy that ushered in the nazis and hitler, he was appointed under anti-democratic "emergency rules"

It were the framers of the US Constitution that didn't trust democracy. Especially one you reference: Madison

Jefferson was a radical lunatic who had a lifelong fantasy of a world that never existed in Saxon England and he supported the worst excesses of the French evolution .

He also kept his own children in slavery. Contempt is too light a felling for this feline of man

dont know what your talking about regarding saxon england.....

i dont think he did supoprt the wordsst excesses of french republicans

....he freed his children at the age of 17 I believe...kind of like parents do today

Jefferson was thin-skinned. He was chided and made fun out of by friends and mocked by others for his childish beliefs -- myths, which he refused to walk away from. Jefferson believed there existed in pre Magna Cart England, a utopian Saxon ideal of liberty "self governing Saxon Boroughs" - (Rosen - The Supreme Court/Personalities- page 37). This is mentioned in many bios of the thin-skinned, little effeminate Tommie

I kind of doubt the author knows what hes talking about...ive read lot of stuff on jefferson...never read that....anyway i dont know how they were governed, do you? iceland had an early parliment type government as I understand.

I really dont care how effeminate you say he was you seem to be fixated on that

Jefferson's fantasy world is well documented. The author you question -- I'd take his research over yours any day. LOL I told you, I've read it in more than one account of Jefferson's life.

Jefferson's main idiocy was that Saxons lost a mythic liberty they never had

Effeminate in ways that are unflattering caricatures of weak men -- men afraid to battle in the open, men who would use surrogates and proxies, men who detested conflict yet fed it

 

[francoHFW]

dcraelin

they shoudl ahve looked on it from more of a states rights vieew...I thin it is more i line with the founders intent..than their "reasoning"

We have the framer's views on recall -- it's called elections.

States rights view of what? Senators were supposed to be above the recall of the mobocracy

But they were supposed to represent their states.....and someone said they could be easily recalled by state legislatures....

limiting contributions to in-state residences would be a way to focus on states interests

I'd have to look up the recall thing, but if it's factual I'd bet it was a high bar to pass, like a super majority.

Representing a state or it's people doesn't mean not voting your own conscience. If that were so we would have a government run by plebiscite and referendum. think Hitler and Nazi party

I see you on here defended the idea that we are a democracy...then you turn around and say that!!!....Hitler hated democracy....

he cetainly never used referendum or plebisite.....

Hitler used a form of direct/popular democracy to take over.

What in the world are you talking about?

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHALL
Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES



Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20 -- Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.
Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on hisDictatorship but Opposition Is Doubled

Popular democracy breeds the type of democracy we saw during the Arab Spring. I for one loathed what would result -- proven on that one.

Baloney. What election did they have in Libya? That's anarchy...Representational democracy is the definition of republic, hater dupes.

When was Hitler's plebiscite? I can tell you now he was aleadt in total control. He never won a majority in a free election. He was APPOINTED CHANCELLOR by Hindenburg and others who thought he could be controlled. Big mistake. They believed his propaganda, like Pub dupes today believe he was a socialist. Idiocy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

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

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

The pressure of what populace?....the states populace....and the staes populace should have the interst of the state as a whole in mind....

senators elected by state legislators were susiptable to corruption..that is what direct election was meant to cure....I think it did help a little.

Now, the Santae of rome was officially advisory only...

Ben Frnaklin wanted a one-house legislature....

perhaps taking some power away from the seante would be good....term limits...and or shorter terms also an idea worth considering.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

It's a false choice you put forward. In critiquing her opinion you have exposed an equally abhorrent (to me and others) opinion -- in the words of Clinton and others who demagogue a point "The American people always get it right in the end."

Direct elections of Senators got rid of one set of problems in exchange for another set of problems. While we can disagree or agree over which set of problems is more desirable, direct democracy is still an ugly red headed step child

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

States are part of the nation. They are part of we the people........The red bolded statement is BS.

We are a country of states, and states are made up of people. National laws AFFECT STATES.........force them to change laws in their state to comply with Federal Laws.............So they should have a say in it.

You and many like you continue to view the FEDERAL GOV'T as an ENTITY OF IT'S OWN............It is not..........it is ELECTED REPS of STATES to decide National laws............How in the world did you come in with States should mind their own business when they are actually PART OF THE FEDERAL GOV'T in CREATING LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE........................

 

[eagle1462010]

The 17th removed the State Legislatures voice..............as it was intended under the Founding principles of the Constitution. Legislatures of states know more about the effects of National laws. They know because National Laws have direct effects on all states in order to comply with the law.

The average Joe of the State doesn't know the details or EFFECTS of these new laws which is why the Senators were selected by the State Gov'ts.................and it's a hell of a lot harder to buy off a whole State Legislature than 2 Senators................