Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[Intense]

Fool? Okay clueless one, on constitutional and governing issues aas well as political ones, I side mostly with Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Chief Justice Marshall.

See? Duelling Framers. LOL

Washington basically let Hamilton run the show, the Whiskey Rebellion, The Alien and Sedition Acts, the Birth of Statism. Adams woke up to the threat, a little late, but at least he figured it out. Marshal had no place being involved with Marbury V. Madison, having personal involvement in the case. That was the end of 3 Coequal Branches of Government right there. There were 2 Hamiltons, Pre Ratification Hamilton and Post Ratification Hamilton. Dr. Jeckll and Mr. Hyde. There were those that believed in Federalism, and those that used it as a tool to establish their Oligarchy. The money trail puts big business right in bed with the Federal Government. Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

If you people are going to argue for what the framers understood and what they meant, you must look at Marshall's involvement in the context of their times...it was not unusual and there was no serious inherent conflict argument made at that time, was there?

Big business? The wealthiest men in America provoked and backed the revolution. Men of property and what you would call 'big business' people like you need to stop jumping between eras and time. You either argue within a certain context or you do not

[MENTION=20285]Intense[/MENTION]

Hamilton fought fiercely to help ratify a document that was more to Madison's liking than Hamilton's, and it was Jefferson and Madison as well as Hamilton, who had many faces in a few short years. Marshall was the saviour of the American experiment

You should wory more about your own boundaries and limitations. Marshal had a Relative who was a direct benefactor of the ruling. If you were responsible for handing out Court appointments of an outgoing President, and failed to act in a timely manner, before the deadline, why should the court bail you out? Madison saw the Kangaroo Court for what it was, a stacked deck, he thought he could do better.
Hamilton paid lip service to the concept of enumerated powers, knowing full well that he could do whatever he wanted, anything he could imagine, under the General Welfare. Hamilton Married Big Government to Big Business, with Government both in charge, and a silent partner.

 

[freedombecki]

I'll take Levin seriously in his drive to reform the country when he comes out in favor of repealing the 19th.

That isn't going to happen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the ignorant among you who keep rambling on about the supposed big difference between a republic and a democracy,

let Jefferson explain it:

"For let it be agreed that a government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns (not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city, or small township, but) by representatives chosen by himself, and responsible to him at short periods, and let us bring to the test of this canon every branch of our constitution."

Get it? A republic is a democracy, but for reasons of practicality, it is not a direct democracy.

Letter to Samuel Kercheval | Teaching American History

Did he say that before or after the invention of the flush toilet? You realize that a Federal Republic is a Hybrid Democracy, right? My impression of you was that you were above being duped by the angry mob. Are you actually advocating for mob rule? Here is a thought, which ever way we are ruled, let's limit the powers, of that rule and as a bonus, limit the threat of Tyranny.

Find enough fingers to see if you can add the two blue highlighted sentences together.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Steny Hoyer: House Democrats won majority of 2012 popular vote
Tuesday, February 12th, 2013

Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives by 33 seats, an advantage Speaker John Boehner once suggested gives them a mandate to block tax increases.

Some House Democrats have countered this idea with their own talking point: GOP members may control more seats, but they did not win the popular vote in 2012.

"House GOP Won 49 Percent of Votes, 54 Percent of Seats." (The story and corresponding chart are accessible to subscribers only.)

By Cook’s calculations, House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201.

It was the second time in 70 years that a party won the majority of the vote but didn’t win a majority of the House seats, according to the analysis.


In Florida 18 11 3,826,522 3,392,402

PolitiFact | Steny Hoyer: House Democrats won majority of 2012 popular vote

Such discrepancies don't happen by chance - its the result of a concerted effort by Republicans at the state level at "gerrymandering" by redrawing congressional districts in 2010 to negate the popular vote.

But conservatives will tell you that somehow that's better for America, because the only good majority is a Republican majority. The People are a mob, therefore, any manipulation of democracy that results in giving the conservative minority some sort of oligarchical power

is for the greater good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is a little hint for you, no one here thinks that the constitution or the founders was ever perfect. That argument is the sole property of the demonizations of the left. Because you don’t seem to be able to face the real arguments placed here, you are mischaracterizing ours. I would tell you to stop but I know that you are not capable of that. It is the true refuge of those that do not have any real points to make or logical arguments to fall back on. When you have nothing, lie about what the other side is trying to accomplish.

lol you contradicted yourself in 2 consecutive posts.

Can you even define what a "contradiction" is?

You having opposable thumbs?

 

[FA_Q2]

The law of unintended consequences aside, the 17th addressed an issue of the day. Conservatives and others always want to go back to the future. It is what happens when there is a vacuum of leadership and an empty chasm of ideas.

Madison's arguments addressed a reality that existed in a different time politically, economically, socially...you name it.

Thomas Jefferson imagined a past that never existed and he is still quoted as an authority for ideas too. Americans are amusing

I know, right. It is obvious that people living over 200 years ago know nothing about today and their insights border on useless. I mean, what the fuck does Isaac Newton know anyway. We should just disregard anything that he had to say; that was over 400 years ago. The likes of Sun Tzu should really be taken out of study in military academies. That man understood NOTHING about modern warfare as he was dealing with armies that still used swards. Obviously, his knowledge and insight is worthless in today’s world. Adam smith is another one of those relics of the past that have no knowledge worth studying.

Perhaps you should really take a good look at reality and understand that there is a lot about past people that you can learn from and use today. To believe that you are so grates that the minds of yesteryear are worthless is arrogant beyond reason.

The Framers did not speak with a single voice, nor were they of a single mind; and their perception of the Republic changed over time.

The fundamental themes of liberty expressed by the Framers will always inspire and have value, but will nonetheless be tempered in the context of the current day and the realities of this modern era.

Your point?

You have argued on SEVERAL threads that we should completely ignore the intentions of the founding fathers because we don’t know what those intentions are (even though they wrote EXTENSIVELY on those subject that are in question) and now here you are making the exact opposite claim. Perhaps because the position is so obviously absurd when looked at objectively and in the context of how much we actually take into consideration of those that lived centuries ago.


Not one single individual on the right has ever claimed that we should, or are for that matter; take the founder’s intentions and thoughts any different than the way you have stated. The difference is though that we are actually bothering to understand what they wanted to accomplish, the reasoning for doing it the way they did and how best to achieve that outcome where the left here seems to solely be interested in disregarding anything that might even be remotely connected with the founders.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not to rain too much on this 500 post idle fantasy,

but does anyone here need to be reminded that the 17th will never be repealed, that senate election will never get put back the way they were?

Two simple dealbreaking reasons:

1. You have slim and none chance of getting 2/3rds of Congress to propose it.

2. Even if 1. occurred, then 38 state legislatures have to ratify it, which means that 38 state legislatures have to vote to take the People's right to vote for their senators

AND GIVE IT TO THEMSELVES!!

Show us the state politicians who want to sell that idea to the voters!!

lol

It won't be too long before the federal government becomes so tyrannical and unresponsive to the people, that the states will use their Article V powers to bypass them and call for a Constitution themselves, and ratify it without Congress's approval.

What will you Progressives do when the Citizens bypass your Big Gov and dissolve it?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

See that part in bold text? It was an emergency measure intended for this very nightmare scenario, when the Federal Government became too large and tyrannical. The States could simply dissolve it, regardless of Big Gov's input.

Yeah right, I can see state senators and assemblyman all over the country going to their constituencies and saying,

hey, sorry, but we don't think you people are smart enough to choose your senators so we're going to take that power away from you and!

we politicians in your state capital are going to give that power to US!!!

because afterall, you should know by now how much smarter than you we politicians are.

lolol.

Talk about handing their opponents in the next election a golden issue on a silver platter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know, right. It is obvious that people living over 200 years ago know nothing about today and their insights border on useless. I mean, what the fuck does Isaac Newton know anyway. We should just disregard anything that he had to say; that was over 400 years ago. The likes of Sun Tzu should really be taken out of study in military academies. That man understood NOTHING about modern warfare as he was dealing with armies that still used swards. Obviously, his knowledge and insight is worthless in today’s world. Adam smith is another one of those relics of the past that have no knowledge worth studying.

Perhaps you should really take a good look at reality and understand that there is a lot about past people that you can learn from and use today. To believe that you are so grates that the minds of yesteryear are worthless is arrogant beyond reason.

The Framers did not speak with a single voice, nor were they of a single mind; and their perception of the Republic changed over time.

The fundamental themes of liberty expressed by the Framers will always inspire and have value, but will nonetheless be tempered in the context of the current day and the realities of this modern era.

Your point?

You have argued on SEVERAL threads that we should completely ignore the intentions of the founding fathers because we don’t know what those intentions are (even though they wrote EXTENSIVELY on those subject that are in question) and now here you are making the exact opposite claim. Perhaps because the position is so obviously absurd when looked at objectively and in the context of how much we actually take into consideration of those that lived centuries ago.


Not one single individual on the right has ever claimed that we should, or are for that matter; take the founder’s intentions and thoughts any different than the way you have stated. The difference is though that we are actually bothering to understand what they wanted to accomplish, the reasoning for doing it the way they did and how best to achieve that outcome where the left here seems to solely be interested in disregarding anything that might even be remotely connected with the founders.

Best put by Jefferson:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead.

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Carby has no capacity to engage in this discussion.

He quotes TJ to "inform" us that we CAN alter our Constitution.

We kind of already know that, though. In fact, we have already done it a couple of dozen plus times.

The whole point of this thread and Levin's book is to discuss doing it some more.

The reason we need to do so is that we have gone very far adrift from the original intent of crafting a government that is BOUND by certain constraints.

No wonder a far left wing fubar like Carby objects.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Framers did not speak with a single voice, nor were they of a single mind; and their perception of the Republic changed over time.

The fundamental themes of liberty expressed by the Framers will always inspire and have value, but will nonetheless be tempered in the context of the current day and the realities of this modern era.

Your point?

You have argued on SEVERAL threads that we should completely ignore the intentions of the founding fathers because we don’t know what those intentions are (even though they wrote EXTENSIVELY on those subject that are in question) and now here you are making the exact opposite claim. Perhaps because the position is so obviously absurd when looked at objectively and in the context of how much we actually take into consideration of those that lived centuries ago.


Not one single individual on the right has ever claimed that we should, or are for that matter; take the founder’s intentions and thoughts any different than the way you have stated. The difference is though that we are actually bothering to understand what they wanted to accomplish, the reasoning for doing it the way they did and how best to achieve that outcome where the left here seems to solely be interested in disregarding anything that might even be remotely connected with the founders.

Best put by Jefferson:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead.

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

aka Jefferson could have been saying if the people see the system broke, FIX IT. Our system is broke and financially broke. Many see this, but Progressives do not as it is against their mantra. They want bigger Gov't. They think Uncle Sam is Robin Hood to take from the rich and deliver it to those he seems worthy of the so called pot of gold.

Problem is, this isn't England, and it sure as hell isn't Sherwood Forrest.

 

[The T]

I've been for repealing the 17th for years.

A very unpopular position.

And NOTE that the 17th happened the same time as the 16th and during the Progressive WILSON.

It was the beginning of the END of this Republic.

Senators were to be selected by the States as to give proper Representation of the respective STATES, and those in power in the several States...now even morons...can elect idiots and enemies of the Republic can elect Senators that don't have the best interest of the respective States...Senators become no better than The HOUSE...

NICE that the progressives redesigned the work of the Founders...

WE live in the result. Took 100 years to fruition.

The 17th should be repealed to reflect the will of the States.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Framers did not speak with a single voice, nor were they of a single mind; and their perception of the Republic changed over time.

The fundamental themes of liberty expressed by the Framers will always inspire and have value, but will nonetheless be tempered in the context of the current day and the realities of this modern era.

Your point?

You have argued on SEVERAL threads that we should completely ignore the intentions of the founding fathers because we don’t know what those intentions are (even though they wrote EXTENSIVELY on those subject that are in question) and now here you are making the exact opposite claim. Perhaps because the position is so obviously absurd when looked at objectively and in the context of how much we actually take into consideration of those that lived centuries ago.


Not one single individual on the right has ever claimed that we should, or are for that matter; take the founder’s intentions and thoughts any different than the way you have stated. The difference is though that we are actually bothering to understand what they wanted to accomplish, the reasoning for doing it the way they did and how best to achieve that outcome where the left here seems to solely be interested in disregarding anything that might even be remotely connected with the founders.

Best put by Jefferson:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead.

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Oh look, carb is making the exact same bullshit lie of an argument that I cast down a scant hour ago. Hell, I even refuted it in the very statements the he quotes. You see, we all actually AGREE with that. It is you and those on your side that disagree with that quote.

Here is a little hint for you, no one here thinks that the constitution or the founders was ever perfect. That argument is the sole property of the demonizations of the left. Because you don’t seem to be able to face the real arguments placed here, you are mischaracterizing ours. I would tell you to stop but I know that you are not capable of that. It is the true refuge of those that do not have any real points to make or logical arguments to fall back on. When you have nothing, lie about what the other side is trying to accomplish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

You "believe" ? I think its quite obvious that is fact! Everything the Republicans do is motivated by winning at any cost to democracy. Heck - a lot of them don't even think we should have a democracy. Republicans believe - and are correct - that if they limit the power of the American voter, they will be better positioned.

Poop, we DON'T have a democracy, nor are we supposed to - in the sense of 100% mob rule. I realize that, because you're an ignorant vagina on legs, you have been duped into believing that democracy, aka mob rule, is a GOOD thing, but it's not.

The one thing you're right about - which is a major improvement over your usual scores, I'll grant you - is that Republicans DO wish to limit and hinder your ideal of democracy, aka mob rule. On the other hand, any thinking person would want to limit ANYTHING the likes of you thought was good, just as a rule of thumb.

 

[The T]

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

You "believe" ? I think its quite obvious that is fact! Everything the Republicans do is motivated by winning at any cost to democracy. Heck - a lot of them don't even think we should have a democracy. Republicans believe - and are correct - that if they limit the power of the American voter, they will be better positioned.

Poop, we DON'T have a democracy, nor are we supposed to - in the sense of 100% mob rule. I realize that, because you're an ignorant vagina on legs, you have been duped into believing that democracy, aka mob rule, is a GOOD thing, but it's not.

The one thing you're right about - which is a major improvement over your usual scores, I'll grant you - is that Republicans DO wish to limit and hinder your ideal of democracy, aka mob rule. On the other hand, any thinking person would want to limit ANYTHING the likes of you thought was good, just as a rule of thumb.

Indeed. a Pure Democracy IS MOB Rule and ultimately denies true Liberty to many. The Founders denied Democracy for a reason...and that was to give ALL a voice...even those in the minority, and the unpopular view as not to be run roughshod over.

It's called Rule of LAW, which the left could care less about except when it gives them more power...and thus steps closer to that which IS...mob rule. (MOB being the Political class...the citizen ultimately loses...tyranny...here we are).

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Which is why when pitiably and horrendously and tragically ignorant lolberals like TderpM talk so longingly of the American "democracy," they tend to be aghast when they are corrected.

But the basic fact is, as The T just noted quite accurately, we do not live in a "democracy." And we shouldn't WANT to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Carby has no capacity to engage in this discussion.

He quotes TJ to "inform" us that we CAN alter our Constitution.

We kind of already know that, though. In fact, we have already done it a couple of dozen plus times.

The whole point of this thread and Levin's book is to discuss doing it some more.

The reason we need to do so is that we have gone very far adrift from the original intent of crafting a government that is BOUND by certain constraints.

No wonder a far left wing fubar like Carby objects.

That's some comical irony coming from you, considering that it is fair to rank you as one of the biggest cheerleaders around here for the election of REPUBLICAN Scott Brown to the SENATE.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which is why when pitiably and horrendously and tragically ignorant lolberals like TderpM talk so longingly of the American "democracy," they tend to be aghast when they are corrected.

But the basic fact is, as The T just noted quite accurately, we do not live in a "democracy." And we shouldn't WANT to.

We are a representative democracy. Look it up.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Carby has no capacity to engage in this discussion.

He quotes TJ to "inform" us that we CAN alter our Constitution.

We kind of already know that, though. In fact, we have already done it a couple of dozen plus times.

The whole point of this thread and Levin's book is to discuss doing it some more.

The reason we need to do so is that we have gone very far adrift from the original intent of crafting a government that is BOUND by certain constraints.

No wonder a far left wing fubar like Carby objects.

That's some comical irony coming from you, considering that it is fair to rank you as one of the biggest cheerleaders around here for the election of REPUBLICAN Scott Brown to the SENATE.

It's not true. Most of the stuff you spew tends to be untruthful.

Nonetheless, I was indeed happy that Scott Brown got elected. Too bad he turned out to be so unfaithful to principles.

Doesn't change anything. The FACT remains, you as a flaming far left wing lolberal are opposed to the Constitutional constraints on the power of the Federal Gubmint.

You are what emblematic of what is wrong with the thinking of modern American liberalism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

You "believe" ? I think its quite obvious that is fact! Everything the Republicans do is motivated by winning at any cost to democracy. Heck - a lot of them don't even think we should have a democracy. Republicans believe - and are correct - that if they limit the power of the American voter, they will be better positioned.

Poop, we DON'T have a democracy, nor are we supposed to - in the sense of 100% mob rule. I realize that, because you're an ignorant vagina on legs, you have been duped into believing that democracy, aka mob rule, is a GOOD thing, but it's not.

The one thing you're right about - which is a major improvement over your usual scores, I'll grant you - is that Republicans DO wish to limit and hinder your ideal of democracy, aka mob rule. On the other hand, any thinking person would want to limit ANYTHING the likes of you thought was good, just as a rule of thumb.

Is it because we don't have 'mob rule' that this nation has been able to keep Conservatives out of power for 250 years?

When is the last time genuine conservatives controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate?

Maybe you have a point. lolol

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We had a natural conservative majority for many years.

The breakdown began with the inroads crafted by liberals.

The process of possible correction now would naturally run counter to the "instincts" of lolberal statists chumps like Carby.