Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[MENTION=21905]FA_Q2[/MENTION]I ask then, HOW can you state that your rights are intrinsic when we clearly established a government that can remove those rights at will. Personally, that is absolutely unacceptable. I agree with most of the founders intentions with America but this stance I cannot abide. I have the right to freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, the press, due process and a host of other freedoms that are intrinsic to my being human and NO government be it federal or STATE has the right to abridge those rights. Until the 14th, that was not a tenant of the government. I dont think there is anything that would cause me to cede all of my rights to the state and I believe that repealing the 14th would do exactly that.
Tyranny of the federal government is no different from tyranny of the state government. I fight it all for freedom.
Then you should be all the more worried about the 14th Amendment.
It doesn't mention your rights at all.
It says your "privileges and immunities."
According to the 14th Amendment, you have no rights. You concerns were already addressed by the Ninth Amendment, which was effectively repealed by the 14th. If the Ninth Amendment remains fully intact, then the 14th Amendment is redundant.
Legalese is a very nasty language, that's why our original Constitution was written and ratified in common plain terms, the 14th Amendment was written under military occupation and passed by a bankrupt empty, and a bankrupt entity is a either a legally dead entity or held in bondage as chattel.
The theory of Divine Right asserts that God divides men by certain distinctions, Kings and Subjects, just as God divides the human species into male and female. The King is Sovereign, exercising supreme authority in all spheres of government, in all places subject to his jurisdiction; therefore, under this doctrine, the King is endowed by the Creator with unlimited rights, for all decisions made by the King are in fact the will of God.
The Subject is inferior to the King, and must accept any edict from the King without question. The Subject only has those rights which the King permits. Those rights may be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Some Subjects will enjoy being in a privileged class (so long as they remain in favor with the King), elevating their status in both government and society, for if God can create the Distinction of King and Subject among Men, then the King, who rules by the will of God, can create the Distinction of Nobility and Commoner among the Subjects.
Central to the doctrine of Divine Right, was that no Subject may question the King, for questioning any edict of the King was equivalent to challenging the will of God. The King being Sovereign over his Subjects, both Noble and Common, can only be judged by God, or another King, as other Kings rule by the will of God. Thus the Subjects have no power, on heaven or earth, to depose of their King.
However, during the middle of the 17th Century, a man named John Milton came to challenge the legitimacy of the Divine Right doctrine itself. Milton argued that the King's authority was derived from the people, and thus the King's power is only granted to him by Popular Sovereignty. Most important is that the people derive this sovereignty from God, and that these Sovereigns have both the right and the obligation to overthrow a tyrannical King. Here the roles of King and Subject are reversed, the Subjects are Sovereign over the King; the King only rules as a privilege extended to him by the people, a privilege that can be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Overall, the King is a Servant to the Public, hence the term public servant.
Geez, why not have the Governor just pick the Senators, the House reps, and cast one vote for President on behalf of the state?
That is a fact. How would you feel if the state you resided in decided that travel was illegal and that you were required to be a practicing Muslim? All perfectly fine before the 14th.
It's hard to imagine someone more confused. First, you are against the "tyranny of the majority," a snobbish phrase invented by a FRENCH!!! aristocrat whose family unfortunately escaped the guillotine.
Then you call oligarchy "Communist." Well, the only way to protect us from an oligarchy is absolute rule of the majority.
Geez, why not have the Governor just pick the Senators, the House reps, and cast one vote for President on behalf of the state?
Well, it's better than 51% murdering the other 49%. I'm not making this up; some nutcases actually believe that Zombieland scenario.
Still does not answer my question
Show where it says in the Constitution that the House represents the people and the Senate represents the states
That is the premise for wanting to repeal the 17th Amendment
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."
You have been led to water numerous times y numerous people. We can't make you drink.
Clueless joe
We know how the original Constitution called for the selection of Congressmen and Senators. That is what was changed by the 17th
You have yet to show where the Senate was supposed to represent the states instead of We the People
The day will come that you will be the victim of the mob. And on that day there will be great celebration.
I already explained that electing Senators the old way would make me the victim of the 'mob' of Republicans in my district. They would assure that I have no say in electing my Senators.
"Your" Senators are not supposed to represent you. They are supposed to represent your state government.
Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.
Are you aware that the 17th Amendment was a Progressive how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-tryanny-of-the-majority scam?
Notice it was ratified (by forgery) in the same year, 1913 of the 16th Amendment (IRS) and the creation of the Federal Reserve, so the Keynasians could control both the supply, demand, and distribution of currency --- and then the Great Depression happened --- and the Keynesians increased government intervention, instead of reducing it ... oh right --- they orchestrated the Great Depression for that very same purpose.
Go commie.
Total Oligarchy, the way Communism always resolves.
The people have no control over the Federal Government in the House, and the States have no control over the federal government in the Senate, the corporations however, have control of both ... oh right again --- as intended.
It's hard to imagine someone more confused. First, you are against the "tyranny of the majority," a snobbish phrase invented by a FRENCH!!! aristocrat whose family unfortunately escaped the guillotine. Then you call oligarchy "Communist." Well, the only way to protect us from an oligarchy is absolute rule of the majority.
After you come down on Communism and Keynes and all the bugaboos of the Greedhead looters, you attack the corporations! You're going in a circle, attacking everything anyone might not like, desperately hoping to hook people into taking your point of view. Around and around you go until you get dizzy enough to fall flat on your face.
That is a fact. How would you feel if the state you resided in decided that travel was illegal and that you were required to be a practicing Muslim? All perfectly fine before the 14th.
Everything Obama does is legal. Does that make it Lawful?
Legal and Lawful are separate terms.
The State Churches dissipated long before the 14th was passed, because they were unlawful. No entity has the right to compel you into Spiritual Contract, the 14th Amendment simply enumerates that fact.
The Constitution is not a charter of rights, it's a declaration of pre-existing rights, some of which was enumerated, most which aren't.
You seem to think that one's rights are determined by legality. That means they are privileges, not rights. It is the role of Government to protect your rights, and that's it, be it a County, State or Federal Government.
Well, A for effort, but unfortunately not a single word of what you said addressed the point of my question...
...why would losing my right to vote directly for my Senators make my life better?
Let me put a finer point on it:
I live in one of the most Republican districts of New York State. Rarely if ever are Democrats EVER elected to the state legislature from here. That's the reality of the demographics. My county voted 6 to 1 AGAINST Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senate, even though she won handily.
Under the plan you like, I would NEVER have a vote AT ALL for NYS Senator. At all. Directly or indirectly. In fact, under the system you want, because my state reps will always be Republicans,
exceptions, I guarantee you).
Now, again, how does that make my life better? How does a weird rigging of the system make things more democratic,
when a simple popular vote, most votes win system, which is as democratic as you can get,
is already in place?
What part of why should I lose my right to vote for Senators don't YOU understand?
By claiming that the original system was more of a check on what you call 'federal expansionism'
aren't you admitting that the original system has a conservative bias? At least by the measure of 'states' rights' as conservatives like to tout?
If you are using the word "conservative" in the modern political sense, then we are in a gray area. The modern day conservative political beast is far from conservative. The modern day conservative craves federal power as much as the modern day liberal.
But if you mean it in the traditional sense, that is precisely what the Founders intended. To conserve, or limit, the power of the federal government and to preserve the power of the states.
.
Do you know that Jefferson mocked the idea of future generations binding themselves religiously to ideas like 'what the founders intended'?
I already explained that electing Senators the old way would make me the victim of the 'mob' of Republicans in my district. They would assure that I have no say in electing my Senators.
"Your" Senators are not supposed to represent you. They are supposed to represent your state government.
That is the most absurd statement I've seen in this thread. Or at least it's tied for the most absurd statement I've seen in this thread.
If you are using the word "conservative" in the modern political sense, then we are in a gray area. The modern day conservative political beast is far from conservative. The modern day conservative craves federal power as much as the modern day liberal.
But if you mean it in the traditional sense, that is precisely what the Founders intended. To conserve, or limit, the power of the federal government and to preserve the power of the states.
.
Do you know that Jefferson mocked the idea of future generations binding themselves religiously to ideas like 'what the founders intended'?
The Bill of Rights is Amendments. So the "original intent" was to not let us have freedom of speech, gun rights, etc. No wonder those lawyers for the colonial 1% concocted their manifesto behind closed doors! If we, the people, had found out what the Founding Fodder were up to in Constitution Hall, we would have burned the place down.
Wouldn't you know that today's theocratic creeps want us to treat the Constipation as if it were the Bible, the Founding Fodder as the Twelve Apostles, and the SCROTUS as some infallible Protestant Vatican? That is heresy, but for the Greedheads, Heirheads, Bootlickers, and Baggies, it is Heaven on Earth.
"Your" Senators are not supposed to represent you. They are supposed to represent your state government.
That is the most absurd statement I've seen in this thread. Or at least it's tied for the most absurd statement I've seen in this thread.
Then you are out of touch with reality.
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."
You have been led to water numerous times y numerous people. We can't make you drink.
Clueless joe
We know how the original Constitution called for the selection of Congressmen and Senators. That is what was changed by the 17th
You have yet to show where the Senate was supposed to represent the states instead of We the People
Clueless butthead
See above in red. I gave you half the equation in hopes you could figure the rest out on your own. I'd send you back to school, but todays government educations do not include critical thinking skills. Say, did you just graduate?
What part of why should I lose my right to vote for Senators don't YOU understand?
The conceited GOPer thieves and traitors understand perfectly well. They don't want you to vote or to have any power at all. To them, to obey is to be; so you don't exist unless you do what you are told. You are just a nuisance to them; they show their contempt for the rest of us by continuously calling the American people a "mob." They want to have free rein to bribe lawmakers (which the SCROTUS calls "freedom of speech") to let them lie, cheat, and steal to their empty heart's content.
Because they're special, you know: the rest of the country would be living in shacks without special people like them to do whatever they feel like. Because only their paranoiac and megalomaniac feelings count. The rest of us are just furniture.
Let's ask a more basic question. Should the State governments have a check on the Federal government? Because it seems there are alot of people who seem to think that no check should exist.
NYcarbineer, please bear with me and read this whole ?"
The state legislatures passed those laws for good reasons.
Bucket shops.
Those state laws were designed to protect YOU, and they were preempted.
So you go right ahead and clutch this idea to your chest that you are somehow better off with that check on federal preemptions removed.
The term bucket shop comes from the practice of throwing a trade in a bucket instead of entering the trade in the market.
It works like this:
A client calls in a trade. The broker doesn't make the trade. If the trade goes the way of the client, the broker calls the client and tell him he couldn't get the trade off. If the trade goes against the client the brokerage pockets the money the client would've lost in the market.
Now you know what a bucket shop is.
Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.
