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.
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.
They make nice postcardsGood god....are you ever bizarreThere is no free world outside of the United States, even Great Britain is under the dominion of the Crown.
Thank god, nobody takes people like you seriously, we just ridicule you
Are you claiming that the Crown of the United Kingdom is an elaborate hoax?
They make nice postcardsGood god....are you ever bizarre
Thank god, nobody takes people like you seriously, we just ridicule you
Are you claiming that the Crown of the United Kingdom is an elaborate hoax?
But they have no impact on the freedom of the British people
That would presuppose that you fear the Founders...and by logic fear the people that want the Constitution restored.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
WHY do you loathe this Republic called America? Why do you wish it to be something it was never intended to be?
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.
Liberals have been steadfast advocates of the rule of law, where one’s civil liberties are not determined by majority rule. And liberals have been steadfast opponents of conservative advocacy of the majority trampling upon the civil liberties of Americans
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.
Liberals have been steadfast advocates of the rule of law, where one’s civil liberties are not determined by majority rule. And liberals have been steadfast opponents of conservative advocacy of the majority trampling upon the civil liberties of Americans
So what's your view on Edward Snowden and the NSA?
That would presuppose that you fear the Founders...and by logic fear the people that want the Constitution restored.The new guard GOP is more frightening than the old guard
WHY do you loathe this Republic called America? Why do you wish it to be something it was never intended to be?
I don't fear the founders but I place them in their proper context. They were 18th century aristocrats who were exploring new territory on the proper role of citizens and government. I do not grant them special powers to know how a 21st society should be run
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?
Why don't you read the 3,000 to 4,000 pages of documents on this particular issue contained in the Ratification Debates, Conventions, Federalist Papers and other sources?
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.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.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.
. 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.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
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.
+1 to myself.
Oh, brother - youve never been in power, particularly since theres 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?
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 wont 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 dont have such reservations as I am not inconsistent here. I fully support the thrashing of a law that violates rights by the court, thats what they are APPOINTED to do (not voted in consequently).
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.
Mark Levin, the replacement for Rush and Billbo, and Hannity? Will people like Liability/Ilar ever learn?
Mark Levin, the replacement for Rush and Billbo, and Hannity? Will people like Liability/Ilar ever learn?
Levin is absolutely correct.
We are not now and we have never been a pure "democracy."
PART of installing a form of checks and balances is the indirect manner in which Senators were to be elected.
It gave more power to the STATES. In a FEDERAL system, that it self serves as a check and as a reminder to the centralized federal government that ITS authority IS limited.
Why does it give more power to the States? How is letting the People of the state directly pick who they want for their Senators taking power away from the state?
How can the State and the People be two different entities?
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.
Whats remarkable is how comprehensively ignorant this post is.
Liberals have been steadfast advocates of the rule of law, where ones civil liberties are not determined by majority rule. And liberals have been steadfast opponents of conservative advocacy of the majority trampling upon the civil liberties of Americans, with regard to the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, and privacy rights concerning contraception.
In these and other cases, conservatives have advocated that the rights of citizens be denied at the behest of the majority, in clear violation of the Constitution and its case law, and the original intent of the Framers.
Mark Levin, the replacement for Rush and Billbo, and Hannity? Will people like Liability/Ilar ever learn?
No. They'll always blame liberals for everything.
