Dangers of democracy

[Polk]

2- The House Of Representatives was supposed to represent the will of the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the will of the States.

3- Also the Electoral College is supposed to protect our rights from super majorities;

Except that really wasn't the purpose. There wasn't some deep philosophical vain.

4 An independent Judiciary was supposed to act as a bulwark of our liberties

Entrusting our liberties to a powerless group. Genius.

 

[whaleboat]

OK Polk , What was the true purpose behind the founding of America ?

 

[nels96]

The best answer to this question and any other question is to throw all of Congress OUT!

The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress is : NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!

Most folks think I am too unreasonable in asking everyone to NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS. They think it’s an ‘extremist’ position. But that’s the whole point! Congress will never listen to us UNLESS we scare the bejesus out of them! To drive the point home, NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS, AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!

The closer we get to a “Voter’s One-Term Congress”, the closer we’ll get to a “Citizen’s Congress”.

There is only one way to make this happen : The American voter must IMPOSE term limits on Congress by NEVER REELECTING ANYONE IN CONGRESS, AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION! In other words, don't let anyone serve more than one term. That's the only way to teach them that the voter is the boss! The “one term limit” can be eased AFTER citizens get control of Congress.

Congress will never allow us to constitutionally term limit them by an amendment. Our only choice is to NEVER REELECT them. All of them!

Remember too, it makes no difference who you vote for, as long as it is NEVER any incumbent.

I believe that even a little success in a campaign to NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS would move us a long way toward a revolutionary change in American politics, much like 1776. Some of the reasons in favor of this approach:

• It gives us a one-term, term limited Congress without using amendments
• It would be supported by 70% of the country who want term limits for Congress
• It is completely non-partisan
• If repeated, it ends career politicians dominating Congress
• It opens the way to a “citizen Congress”
• It ends the seniority system that keeps freshmen powerless
• It doesn’t cost you any money. But you MUST vote! Just don’t vote for an incumbent
• It is the only guaranteed, infallible, unstoppable way to “Throw ALL the Bums Out”
• It takes effect immediately the day after Election Day
• If it doesn’t work, do it again and again! It will work eventually, I promise.

NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS. AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!

Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com Saratoga, CA

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Tyranny of the majority is tyranny nevertheless.

Reason the Founding Fathers REJECTED democracy in favor of a Constitutional Republic.


.

How does this eliminate tyranny of the majority? Who elects the representatives and if the representatives fails to do the bidding of the majority what happens?

1-Rights are secured by the Constitution - they no depend on the will of the majority, ie, I have a right to bear arms regardless of what the majority decides

2- The House Of Representatives was supposed to represent the will of the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the will of the States.

3- Also the Electoral College is supposed to protect our rights from super majorities;

4 An independent Judiciary was supposed to act as a bulwark of our liberties


.

The States reps are hardly doing their job, they are now part of the problem.

 

[Contumacious]

2- The House Of Representatives was supposed to represent the will of the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the will of the States.

3- Also the Electoral College is supposed to protect our rights from super majorities;

Except that really wasn't the purpose. There wasn't some deep philosophical vain.

Really>

Share your findings with us.

4 An independent Judiciary was supposed to act as a bulwark of our liberties

Entrusting our liberties to a powerless group. Genius.

Only two presidents have attempted to take advantage of that weakness: Ape Lincoln and Franklin "The Fascist Scumbag" Roosevelt.


.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

2- The House Of Representatives was supposed to represent the will of the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the will of the States.

3- Also the Electoral College is supposed to protect our rights from super majorities;

Except that really wasn't the purpose. There wasn't some deep philosophical vain.

4 An independent Judiciary was supposed to act as a bulwark of our liberties

Entrusting our liberties to a powerless group. Genius.

Yeah maybe we need a nation security force as well trained and funded as the military .

 

[Diuretic]

I recently attended a town hall meeting and was very disappointed with what I heard . The sentiment in the room was a dissatisfaction with our Nation's shift toward socialism and the feeling that our Constitution is being ignored . In the course of discussion the subject of term limits for elected officials came up , and the crowd was generally in favor of somehow imposing them . In my opinion term limits are ridiculous . Why would you kick somebody out of office if they're doing a good job ? But what really disappointed me is that people who felt the Constitution was being ignored wanted to correct the problem by messing with the Constitution .

Tyranny of the majority is tyranny nevertheless.

Reason the Founding Fathers REJECTED democracy in favor of a Constitutional Republic.


.

Lots of people have written on the problem of the tyranny of the majority but for me J.S.Mill covers it best. As he pointed out in On LIberty, it's not just the politicians who can practice it:

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.

 

[Contumacious]

How does this eliminate tyranny of the majority? Who elects the representatives and if the representatives fails to do the bidding of the majority what happens?

1-Rights are secured by the Constitution - they no depend on the will of the majority, ie, I have a right to bear arms regardless of what the majority decides

2- The House Of Representatives was supposed to represent the will of the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the will of the States.

3- Also the Electoral College is supposed to protect our rights from super majorities;

4 An independent Judiciary was supposed to act as a bulwark of our liberties


.

The States reps are hardly doing their job, they are now part of the problem.

Blame that on the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It made the Senate another House Of Representatives.


.

 

[Polk]

OK Polk , What was the true purpose behind the founding of America ?

You act as if it was a deep and complex plan. It wasn't. It was the product of experimentation and compromise.

 

[The T]

I recently attended a town hall meeting and was very disappointed with what I heard . The sentiment in the room was a dissatisfaction with our Nation's shift toward socialism and the feeling that our Constitution is being ignored . In the course of discussion the subject of term limits for elected officials came up , and the crowd was generally in favor of somehow imposing them . In my opinion term limits are ridiculous . Why would you kick somebody out of office if they're doing a good job ? But what really disappointed me is that people who felt the Constitution was being ignored wanted to correct the problem by messing with the Constitution .

Your Theme title is partially corrct. Democracy in it's PUREST FORM is MOB RULE...and why the Founders opted OUT of that option, and gave a Representitive Form, known as a republic which by LAW limited the powers of Government, and empowered the people...

But to CHANGE anything not enumerated (Written IN the Constitution), had to be addressed by Amendment and not by merely just writing a LAW.

I hope that you get my meaning. If you were to look at it? MANY LAWS written now...ARE Unconstitutional, and remain UNCHALLANGED by the Legislature, the Executive, or the Judicial Branches...and of more import?

The PEOPLE...

Now why is that? WHY do we BLINDLY accept that ALL LAW is written on Constitutional Grounds?

 

[bodecea]

I recently attended a town hall meeting and was very disappointed with what I heard . The sentiment in the room was a dissatisfaction with our Nation's shift toward socialism and the feeling that our Constitution is being ignored . In the course of discussion the subject of term limits for elected officials came up , and the crowd was generally in favor of somehow imposing them . In my opinion term limits are ridiculous . Why would you kick somebody out of office if they're doing a good job ? But what really disappointed me is that people who felt the Constitution was being ignored wanted to correct the problem by messing with the Constitution .

Your Theme title is partially corrct. Democracy in it's PUREST FORM is MOB RULE...and why the Founders opted OUT of that option, and gave a Representitive Form, known as a republic which by LAW limited the powers of Government, and empowered the people...

But to CHANGE anything not enumerated (Written IN the Constitution), had to be addressed by Amendment and not by merely just writing a LAW.

I hope that you get my meaning. If you were to look at it? MANY LAWS written now...ARE Unconstitutional, and remain UNCHALLANGED by the Legislature, the Executive, or the Judicial Branches...and of more import?

The PEOPLE...

Now why is that? WHY do we BLINDLY accept that ALL LAW is written on Constitutional Grounds?

Um. Laws already written can only be challenged in the Judicial Branch.

Other than that, I agree that there are many laws that need to be challenged.

 

[Polk]

2- The House Of Representatives was supposed to represent the will of the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the will of the States.

3- Also the Electoral College is supposed to protect our rights from super majorities;

Except that really wasn't the purpose. There wasn't some deep philosophical vain.

Really>

Share your findings with us.

Go and read the debates from the Constitutional Convention. The nature of the two chambers came as of a result of a compromise between the larger and smaller states (the larger states wanting two chambers both based on population, the smaller states wanting a single chamber with equal representation between the states). The Electoral College was the result of a similar compromise. One faction wanted the President elected by Congress, while the other wanted the President directly elected.

4 An independent Judiciary was supposed to act as a bulwark of our liberties

Entrusting our liberties to a powerless group. Genius.

Only two presidents have attempted to take advantage of that weakness: Ape Lincoln and Franklin "The Fascist Scumbag" Roosevelt.

O please. For starters, your hero Andrew Jackson was the most obvious violator.

 

[The T]

I recently attended a town hall meeting and was very disappointed with what I heard . The sentiment in the room was a dissatisfaction with our Nation's shift toward socialism and the feeling that our Constitution is being ignored . In the course of discussion the subject of term limits for elected officials came up , and the crowd was generally in favor of somehow imposing them . In my opinion term limits are ridiculous . Why would you kick somebody out of office if they're doing a good job ? But what really disappointed me is that people who felt the Constitution was being ignored wanted to correct the problem by messing with the Constitution .

Your Theme title is partially corrct. Democracy in it's PUREST FORM is MOB RULE...and why the Founders opted OUT of that option, and gave a Representitive Form, known as a republic which by LAW limited the powers of Government, and empowered the people...

But to CHANGE anything not enumerated (Written IN the Constitution), had to be addressed by Amendment and not by merely just writing a LAW.

I hope that you get my meaning. If you were to look at it? MANY LAWS written now...ARE Unconstitutional, and remain UNCHALLANGED by the Legislature, the Executive, or the Judicial Branches...and of more import?

The PEOPLE...

Now why is that? WHY do we BLINDLY accept that ALL LAW is written on Constitutional Grounds?

Um. Laws already written can only be challenged in the Judicial Branch.

Other than that, I agree that there are many laws that need to be challenged.

Oh Really? ONLY the Judicial Branch? Care to revise this stance?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I recently attended a town hall meeting and was very disappointed with what I heard . The sentiment in the room was a dissatisfaction with our Nation's shift toward socialism and the feeling that our Constitution is being ignored . In the course of discussion the subject of term limits for elected officials came up , and the crowd was generally in favor of somehow imposing them . In my opinion term limits are ridiculous . Why would you kick somebody out of office if they're doing a good job ? But what really disappointed me is that people who felt the Constitution was being ignored wanted to correct the problem by messing with the Constitution .

The theory behind term limits is that people who go into politics as a lifetime career, as opposed to "citizen servants", as they're called, both become increasingly isolated from the wishes and concerns of their constituents and increasingly have the ability to manipulate circumstances to make it harder to remove them. It is a fact that incumbents are hard to unseat, and the longer they hold it, the harder it is to do.

As far as "messing with the Constitution", creating an Amendment is a far cry from ignoring the Constitution. And what solution would YOU propose to ignoring the Constitution?

 

[Polk]

I recently attended a town hall meeting and was very disappointed with what I heard . The sentiment in the room was a dissatisfaction with our Nation's shift toward socialism and the feeling that our Constitution is being ignored . In the course of discussion the subject of term limits for elected officials came up , and the crowd was generally in favor of somehow imposing them . In my opinion term limits are ridiculous . Why would you kick somebody out of office if they're doing a good job ? But what really disappointed me is that people who felt the Constitution was being ignored wanted to correct the problem by messing with the Constitution .

The theory behind term limits is that people who go into politics as a lifetime career, as opposed to "citizen servants", as they're called, both become increasingly isolated from the wishes and concerns of their constituents and increasingly have the ability to manipulate circumstances to make it harder to remove them. It is a fact that incumbents are hard to unseat, and the longer they hold it, the harder it is to do.

As far as "messing with the Constitution", creating an Amendment is a far cry from ignoring the Constitution. And what solution would YOU propose to ignoring the Constitution?

The idea that career politicians are so objectionable is humorous to me when I consider the alternative (people who run for office to cash in when they leave off based off their relationships on the Hill).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tyranny of the majority is tyranny nevertheless.

Reason the Founding Fathers REJECTED democracy in favor of a Constitutional Republic.


.

How does this eliminate tyranny of the majority? Who elects the representatives and if the representatives fails to do the bidding of the majority what happens?

1-Rights are secured by the Constitution - they no depend on the will of the majority, ie, I have a right to bear arms regardless of what the majority decides

2- The House Of Representatives was supposed to represent the will of the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the will of the States.

3- Also the Electoral College is supposed to protect our rights from super majorities;

4 An independent Judiciary was supposed to act as a bulwark of our liberties


.

Of course, all of those things came about because the majority decided they wanted them.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

OK Polk , What was the true purpose behind the founding of America ?

You act as if it was a deep and complex plan. It wasn't. It was the product of experimentation and compromise.

Yeah you can tell they just kind of slapped it together.

 

[Polk]

OK Polk , What was the true purpose behind the founding of America ?

You act as if it was a deep and complex plan. It wasn't. It was the product of experimentation and compromise.

Yeah you can tell they just kind of slapped it together.

I imagine you're being sarcastic, but looking at the history of the nation, yeah, they pretty much did.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was and never will be."

 

[Polk]

If there was such a clear intelligent and philosophic design behind it, why are each of the following true:

1. The nation's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was an utter failure.
2. Most nations that have adopted constitutions similar to ours have been characterized by political crisis.
3. When giving technical assistance to other nations designing constitutions, we normally advise some sort of parliamentary system (the only case I can think of where we proposed a system like ours was in Afghanistan).