Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[PrometheusBound]

The old guard GOP establishment reminds me the the 900 year old Knight charged with Guarding the Holy Grail in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
The Knight would fiercely guard the Grail and fend off any would be thief or treasure hunter. He's so old however, he can barely lift his sword. The problem is and read closely, no one has been able to replace the old Knight.
So goes the way of politics here. no one has been able to replace the old guard GOP. A group of people who's only purpose is get re-elected.

The new guard GOP is more frightening than the old guard

That would presuppose that you fear the Founders...and by logic fear the people that want the Constitution restored.

WHY do you loathe this Republic called America? Why do you wish it to be something it was never intended to be?

Libretardians and Constitutionazis declare that we live in a republic, but free men don't have to listen to the drooling mouthpieces of the 1%, who are the only ones who benefit from a republic.

 

[eagle1462010]

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Senate Stories > 1787-1800 > A Great Compromise


1787-1800
July 16, 1787
A Great Compromise
The Connecticut Compromise by Bradley Stevens
July 16, 1987, began with a light breeze, a cloudless sky, and a spirit of celebration. On that day, two hundred senators and representatives boarded a special train for a journey to Philadelphia to celebrate a singular congressional anniversary.
Exactly two hundred years earlier, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, meeting at Independence Hall, had reached a supremely important agreement. Their so-called Great Compromise (or Connecticut Compromise in honor of its architects, Connecticut delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth) provided a dual system of congressional representation. In the House of Representatives each state would be assigned a number of seats in proportion to its population. In the Senate, all states would have the same number of seats. Today, we take this arrangement for granted; in the wilting-hot summer of 1787, it was a new idea.
In the weeks before July 16, 1787, the framers had made several important decisions about the Senate’s structure. They turned aside a proposal to have the House of Representatives elect senators from lists submitted by the individual state legislatures and agreed that those legislatures should elect their own senators.
By July 16, the convention had already set the minimum age for senators at thirty and the term length at six years, as opposed to twenty-five for House members, with two-year terms. James Madison explained that these distinctions, based on “the nature of the senatorial trust, which requires greater extent of information and stability of character,” would allow the Senate “to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular[ly elected] branch.”
The issue of representation, however, threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from the large states believed that because their states contributed proportionally more to the nation’s financial and defensive resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the Senate as well as in the House. Small-state delegates demanded, with comparable intensity, that all states be equally represented in both houses. When Sherman proposed the compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate in all matters—except those involving money.
Over the Fourth of July holiday, delegates worked out a compromise plan that sidetracked Franklin’s proposal. On July 16, the convention adopted the Great Compromise by a heart-stopping margin of one vote. As the 1987 celebrants duly noted, without that vote, there would likely have been no Constitution.

 

[eagle1462010]

The new guard GOP is more frightening than the old guard

That would presuppose that you fear the Founders...and by logic fear the people that want the Constitution restored.

WHY do you loathe this Republic called America? Why do you wish it to be something it was never intended to be?

Libretardians and Constitutionazis declare that we live in a republic, but free men don't have to listen to the drooling mouthpieces of the 1%, who are the only ones who benefit from a republic.

aka If you believe in the rule by the Constitution then you are a Nazi................

F.........You and the horse you rode in on.

 

[FA_Q2]

California Proposition 8 = Direct Democracy (the concept hated by Mark Levin and you people)

Appeals Courts that ruled against Prop 8 = Judges appointed/approved by elected officials (similar to how Levin, and you people - you know who you people are - want the Senate to be appointed)

So, who should have the final say?

The sensibly appointed judges, or the Mob?

Perhaps you should direct that vapid quote. I have ben engaging you for several pages where you have insistently demanded that you want to directly vote for your reps except that you won’t say in the case of judges and now you are pointing out yet another case where you are a complete hypocrite in opposition of a democratically passed law.

Fortunately I don’t have such reservations as I am not inconsistent here. I fully support the thrashing of a law that violates rights by the court, that’s what they are APPOINTED to do (not voted in consequently).

 

[Mustang]

Levin is the Pied Piper of the conservative movement; he will lead them into the sea of political irrelevance where, as they grasp for any straw to save themselves from their travails, they'll likely blame liberals for their plight.

I'm a big fan.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The old guard GOP establishment reminds me the the 900 year old Knight charged with Guarding the Holy Grail in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
The Knight would fiercely guard the Grail and fend off any would be thief or treasure hunter. He's so old however, he can barely lift his sword. The problem is and read closely, no one has been able to replace the old Knight.
So goes the way of politics here. no one has been able to replace the old guard GOP. A group of people who's only purpose is get re-elected.

The new guard GOP is more frightening than the old guard

That would presuppose that you fear the Founders...and by logic fear the people that want the Constitution restored.

WHY do you loathe this Republic called America? Why do you wish it to be something it was never intended to be?

Nonsense.

The Constitution is in no need of being ‘restored,’ it exists now and is functioning exactly as the Framers intended.

Those who loathe the Republic and the rule of law, such as members of the TPM, social conservatives, and rightwing fiscal extremists, advocate the myth that the states have the ‘right’ to ignore Federal law, the Federal courts, and the inalienable rights of the residents of the states as recognized by the Federal Constitution.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The new guard GOP is more frightening than the old guard

That would presuppose that you fear the Founders...and by logic fear the people that want the Constitution restored.

WHY do you loathe this Republic called America? Why do you wish it to be something it was never intended to be?

Nonsense.

The Constitution is in no need of being ‘restored,’ it exists now and is functioning exactly as the Framers intended.

Those who loathe the Republic and the rule of law, such as members of the TPM, social conservatives, and rightwing fiscal extremists, advocate the myth that the states have the ‘right’ to ignore Federal law, the Federal courts, and the inalienable rights of the residents of the states as recognized by the Federal Constitution.

I'm still waiting for your proof that Martin Luther King was a Communist, I will recall the thread if you don't answer.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The vast majority of the unprivileged younger generation have no future to look forward to.

Well that can't be the fault of Libertarians and Constitutionalists, because we haven't been in power since 1913.

+1 to myself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That would presuppose that you fear the Founders...and by logic fear the people that want the Constitution restored.

WHY do you loathe this Republic called America? Why do you wish it to be something it was never intended to be?

Nonsense.

The Constitution is in no need of being ‘restored,’ it exists now and is functioning exactly as the Framers intended.

Those who loathe the Republic and the rule of law, such as members of the TPM, social conservatives, and rightwing fiscal extremists, advocate the myth that the states have the ‘right’ to ignore Federal law, the Federal courts, and the inalienable rights of the residents of the states as recognized by the Federal Constitution.

I'm still waiting for your proof that Martin Luther King was a Communist, I will recall the thread if you don't answer.

Please do.

Then we’ll both know what you’re talking about.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

EXPOSED​

I'm still waiting for your proof that Martin Luther King was a Communist, I will recall the thread if you don't answer.

Please do.

Then we’ll both know what you’re talking about.

Here is the thread, it seems that you do not disagree with DoctorisIn, you jumped on the gravy train with him and kept attacking me:

MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist.

Not a "libertarian".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rtin-luther-king-think-of-edward-snowden.html

And then you further compounded the idiocy by claiming Martin Luther was a moron who couldn't develop his own ideas:

Here's the exchange between you and I on on that issue:

What woudl Martin Luther King think of Edward Snowden?

Snowden is no MLK, the comparison is ignorant idiocy.

Dr. King fought against laws and policies already determined to be illegal and un-Constitutional by the courts; where states and local jurisdictions were in open rebellion against the Constitution and Federal courts.

That in no way relates to Snowden’s alleged criminal acts, where the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional.

Are you claiming that Martin Luther King would have supported segregation if the courts never deemed it un-Constitutional?

MLK thought for himself, he didnt' rely on an archonocracy of judges to think for him.



He does not draw inspiration from the Supreme Court at all, and when finally mentions the SCOTUS at the end of this quote, he mentions it as an aside remark, not a justification of this thoughts; clearly, if he believed the SCOTUS to be morally wrong, he would not agree.

His ability to think and act independently of Government edicts if expressed twice in this very same letter:






In this quote (above) he doesn't even mention the SCOTUS at all, even as an aside remark, clearly he developed these thoughts entirely independent of the archonocracy.

Furthermore, he discredits both white and black nationalist groups (in that very same letter), which dispels any racist origins of his thoughts on segregation.

It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty ******-lovers."

Come on Libtards, give me one thought out answer with references. Your one-liner-ism is getting boring.

Everything you've said has not only been rebuked, but further proven to be the clear opposite of MLK's character. And they evidence that disproves your claim, and further proves them to be outrageously contrary to the actual truth, is found in the very same document (letter) that is being quoted.

EXPOSED​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The vast majority of the unprivileged younger generation have no future to look forward to.

Well that can't be the fault of Libertarians and Constitutionalists, because we haven't been in power since 1913.

+1 to myself.

Oh, brother - you’ve never been ‘in power,’ particularly since there’s no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist.’

Indeed, the Constitution and Republic were established by the Framers to safeguard against many of the policies advocated today by ‘libertarians and constitutionalists.’

 

[FA_Q2]

Well that can't be the fault of Libertarians and Constitutionalists, because we haven't been in power since 1913.

+1 to myself.

Oh, brother - you’ve never been ‘in power,’ particularly since there’s no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist.’

Indeed, the Constitution and Republic were established by the Framers to safeguard against many of the policies advocated today by ‘libertarians and constitutionalists.’

Like?

 

[eagle1462010]

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking

. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

Madison's views on the issue at hand.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Senate, James Madison said, would provide “a necessary fence” against sudden shifts in public opinion.2 “The use of the Senate,” he wrote, “is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, & with more wisdom, than the popular branch.”3

There is an old story about the deliberative nature of the Senate and the important role it plays in legislation. Known as the “saucer and teacup story,” it may be apocryphal (we have not been able to document it prior to the 1850s), but it’s a good, illustrative story and is worth telling.4

It is said that on his return from France after the framers had completed the U.S. Constitution, creating two houses of Congress, Thomas Jefferson called Washington to account for having agreed to a second chamber, the Senate, in the U.S. Congress.

“Of what use is the Senate?” he asked Washington, as he stood before the fire with a cup of tea in his hand. As he asked the question, Jefferson poured some of the tea into his saucer, swirled it around a bit, and then poured it back into the teacup.

“You have answered your own question,” Washington replied.

“What do you mean?” Jefferson asked.

“Why did you pour the tea into your saucer?”

“To cool it,” said Jefferson.

“Just so,” said Washington, “that is why we created the Senate. The Senate is the saucer into which we pour legislation to cool.”

The Senate as the “cooling factor”—the House boils the water and makes the tea, but the Senate allows it to cool. This is a concept that students understand, and it is an idea that is completely consistent with the framers’ view of the Senate.

Is the Senate often slow-moving? Yes.

Does the Senate slow down the legislative process? Yes.

Does the Senate often force compromise to gain legislative success? Yes, and that’s just what the framers designed it to do.

- See more at: Congress: Teaching It [Expert Views] > The Ten Most Important Things to Know About the U.S. Senate

 

[ogibillm]

is there anything more reactionary than the state legislature? i know in missouri if you want knee jerk reaction, poor reasoning, and overreach you look to the legislature to provide it.

the last thing we would need or want is that bunch of clowns electing our senators.

 

[francoHFW]

States Rights has become nothing but a smokescreen for protecting regressive Pub and racist policies. All the damn different laws, licences, license plates, and now health care is just a big regressive, expensive pain in the arse.

 

[JWBooth]

States Rights has become nothing but a smokescreen for protecting regressive Pub and racist policies. All the damn different laws, licences, license plates, and now health care is just a big regressive, expensive pain in the arse.

Proof that there is somebody posting here dumber than a rock.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Liberals on this thread and board have made it clear to me why the Framers did what they did.

The Liberals preach about Democracy over and over again. Majority Rule aka the Mob.

Yet over and over again the Founders WARNED US about this and it is exactly why they choose the path they did.

What really gets me.........................

The Libs are supposed to be some kind of Champion for minorities, but ditch that concept when the Constitution is concerned. The very concept of 2 Senators for each State Rule was to ensure a voice of less populated States to prevent Tyranny by the Majority.
Yet the left continues to Chant RULE BY PURE DEMOCRACY.

Hypocrites one and all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are you claiming that Martin Luther King would have supported segregation if the courts never deemed it un-Constitutional?

Clearly you don’t understand.

Your comparison of MLK and Snowden fails because you’re comparing two completely different issues.

Unlike Snowden. King’s opposition to segregation and other racist policies were predicated on facts of Constitutional case law, not the Civil Rights Leader’s subjective, personal opinions. The issue has nothing to do with what King might or might not have done based on rulings by the Court, the fact remains that King’s positions were legally and Constitutionally valid.

Dr. King’s arrests and detentions were consequently invalid, where the states and local jurisdictions were acting in violation of the Constitution and the case law as determined by the courts.

That’s not the case with Snowden, who was motivated by personal, subjective opinion, completely unfounded by Constitutional case law, as the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional, where no court has ruled otherwise.

Indeed, only the courts can determine whether or not laws or government policies are un-Constitutional, not individuals or states.

Consequently, Snowden is not a ‘whistleblower,’ he’s a criminal suspect, he broke the law by divulging classified information, laws which are both valid and Constitutional.

In fact, comparing MLK to Snowden is an insult to the memory of Dr. King, who was an advocate of the rule of law above all else, where Constitutional case law trumped the illegal and invalid state and local laws he violated in protest.

 

[eagle1462010]

The new guard GOP is more frightening than the old guard

That would presuppose that you fear the Founders...and by logic fear the people that want the Constitution restored.

WHY do you loathe this Republic called America? Why do you wish it to be something it was never intended to be?

Nonsense.

The Constitution is in no need of being ‘restored,’ it exists now and is functioning exactly as the Framers intended.

Those who loathe the Republic and the rule of law, such as members of the TPM, social conservatives, and rightwing fiscal extremists, advocate the myth that the states have the ‘right’ to ignore Federal law, the Federal courts, and the inalienable rights of the residents of the states as recognized by the Federal Constitution.

BS The Fed has grown to something it shouldn't have become. It has created agency after agency to police every aspect of the country and in many cases changes the rules without ever going to congress to do so.

EPA being a fine example of it. They couldn't get Cap and Trade so they let the EPA do it by proxy.

The Founders were clear. They wanted a Small Central Gov't. They wanted most of the country to rule themselves. They were VERY CLEAR that local Gov'ts know better how to Govern themselves than a Central Gov't far away, and that doesn't understand the local concerns.

Yet the Libs want MORE MORE MORE FEDERAL GOV'T, which is exactly what they warned us about.