Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[bripat9643]

If drinking is so damaging to your health, why are you a heavy drinker?

Answer: because people often make mistakes.

Waking up and recognizing a mistake can often lead to a profound desire to undo it.

It is not a valid or reasonable or intelligent answer to an effort to correct some mistake to say, "if it's so bad, why did we do it in the first place?"

Because we made a mistake.

It is time to correct the mistake.

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

Leftwhiner:

Try to be honest when you "argue." You might have something to offer.

The reason we established a bicameral legislative body in the first place was to have the HOUSE serve more directly to represent the people. The People thus DO get to select their own representatives. So much for your disingenuous and false-premise "argument."

The SENATE, by contrast, was DESIGNED to be a bit less direct. That was done FOR an actual legitimate REASON.

And yes, it has proved to BE a mistake to make the election of Senators a direct election process. We tampered with the original Constitutional design in a manner that did prove to cause injury to the Republic.

Clearly, it is not always a mistake to fine tune the mechanisms crafted by the Founders and the Framers. They were wise enough to make provision for such things, in fact. BUT, still, sometimes when we engage in our efforts to fine tune the Constitutional framework, we DO make mistakes. For example: The income tax. A cluster-fuck of a mistake. Direct elections of U.S. Senators. A mistake.

Prohibition? A mistake. Hey. How about that? We corrected that one.

As to your last line, you are such a partisan (in a typically and sadly hack way) that you persist in viewing this discussion as a Democrat vs Republican proposition. I am not a Republican, so I certainly do not share your outlook. You are wrong. It is not a discussion about political party -- even though I acknowledge that some ramifications do impact on political party matters. But what Levin has identified and what this discussion is actually ABOUT goes far beyond party politics.

Allowing the vast mass of idiots more say in our government is one of the prime directives of the DimoRAT party.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What a moronic thing you just said. I'm not surprised, really.

Listen up: I do not consider democracy an evil. As a conservative, I endorse democracy, unlike you.

Like the Founders and the Framers and lots of other intelligent folks, however, I recognize that an unconstrained 'democracy" harbors within it the seeds of some serious problems.

Are you TRULY so ignorant that you NEVER heard of the concept of a "tyranny of the majority?"

Are you such a dilettante devotee of democracy that you favor unconstrained "democracy" over checks and balances that serve to safeguard AGAINST a tyranny of a majority?

Thank the baby Jesus indeed that far wiser people than you PREVAILED at the birth of our Republic.

Democracy creates the checks and balances that the People, through their VOTE, and via MAJORITIES, want.

We only have a Bill of Rights because the MAJORITY wanted it. The rights of minorities that are protected in something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are only in place because a MAJORITY wanted them.

'Tyranny of the majority' is just a catchphrase used by minorities who want a tyranny of their own.

Blathering about 'tyranny of the majority' in order to scare people into abandoning that most basic foundational principle of democratic government to the point where disproportionate minority power is able to cripple the government to the point of making it non-functional is a crime AGAINST democracy.

You are fully wrong. Such is what we can expect from one with your crippled political ideology.

"Tyranny of the Majority" is FAR more than a catch phrase used by minorities. It was an expression of concern by the folks trying to craft a form of government -- cognizant of the potential for serious damage to those in the minority. It was one reason to CRAFT a series of various checks and balances.

You seem unable of unwilling to accept the historical fact, but that's ok. It doesn't go away just because you decline to see it or admit it. The FACT is: as much as the Founders and the Framers WANTED for the People to be sovereign, they also wanted to install institutional checks and balances to constrain the prospect for mischief inherent in a so-called "pure" democracy. They did not trust the people unreservedly. They did not believe that we should trust either the majority without reservation or the government without reservation.

They were right. You are wrong. While we do hold ultimate political authority, and ought to, we do not have easy access to the reigns of power. It was made (deliberately) difficult. This too is as it should be.

What advocates such as you propose (careless sloppy thinking leads you far astray) would take out those constraints. We would rue the day. We already are.

You and your childish way of thinking would have us remove the circuit breakers. You are a danger to the civil society.

Did the majority pass the Bill of Rights or not?

btw, aren't you one who constantly complains about unelected judges overturning the will of the majority?

 

[AmazonTania]

That you consider democracy an evil is what makes you a conservative, and what also puts you in a very tiny minority, thank you baby jesus.

What a moronic thing you just said. I'm not surprised, really.

Listen up: I do not consider democracy an evil. As a conservative, I endorse democracy, unlike you.

Like the Founders and the Framers and lots of other intelligent folks, however, I recognize that an unconstrained 'democracy" harbors within it the seeds of some serious problems.

Are you TRULY so ignorant that you NEVER heard of the concept of a "tyranny of the majority?"

Are you such a dilettante devotee of democracy that you favor unconstrained "democracy" over checks and balances that serve to safeguard AGAINST a tyranny of a majority?

Thank the baby Jesus indeed that far wiser people than you PREVAILED at the birth of our Republic.

Democracy creates the checks and balances that the People, through their VOTE, and via MAJORITIES, want.

We only have a Bill of Rights because the MAJORITY wanted it. The rights of minorities that are protected in something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are only in place because a MAJORITY wanted them.

'Tyranny of the majority' is just a catchphrase used by minorities who want a tyranny of their own.

Blathering about 'tyranny of the majority' in order to scare people into abandoning that most basic foundational principle of democratic government to the point where disproportionate minority power is able to cripple the government to the point of making it non-functional is a crime AGAINST democracy.

I think you are confusing Majority Rule with Democracy. Democracy is a system which insures that the Government is responsible to both the majority and individuals. Majority Rule is a way of choosing. That's not Democracy. The only blathering I am reading around here is the asinine idea that majorities should decide everything, simply because the MAJORITY wanted it.

It should also be noted that Democracies historically have given birth to Tyrannical Regimes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because they would not tell me your opinion.

1. Are you opposed to direct democracy?
2. If so, are you opposed to referendum, such as California's propositions?
3. Are you for Senators being appointed instead of elected?
4. If Senators and Judges are both unelected, is it right for them to then have power over our laws?
Do you have any problem with unelected politicians running the country?

Why should anyone answer your questions when you are being so damn disengenious. You have painted others as though they have to be all for or all against and when you can no longer run from the point that was given to you:

As I explained to you, one does not have to support EVERYONE being elected in order to support Senators being elected,

any more than one has to support everyone being appointed in order to support Senators being appointed.

My questions above are directed to those who are opposed to direct democracy.

Basically admitting that it is NOT an all or nothing proposition. Essentially, your question is rather meaningless now as it has been made clear for you that the supporters of this support DIRECT election of some representatives and state election or appointment other representatives. The reasons for this have also been explained, reasons that you seem unable to address.

Like?

Like the kind of states rights that would allow, for example, a state to legally institute segregation.

WTF? No one here anywhere has supported segregation sio I’ll have to ask again, what fucking policies did the framers guard against that ‘libertarians and constitutionalists’ are putting forth?

To show even further the ignorance of your statement: the framers didn’t put ANY protections in for segregation because they actually supported the most grievous segregation of all: slavery.

Since the framers included an amendment process, they put in place the mechanism to eventually squash the various libertarian, constitutional fundamentalist, and states rights extremist types.

That's how it worked.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What a moronic thing you just said. I'm not surprised, really.

Listen up: I do not consider democracy an evil. As a conservative, I endorse democracy, unlike you.

Like the Founders and the Framers and lots of other intelligent folks, however, I recognize that an unconstrained 'democracy" harbors within it the seeds of some serious problems.

Are you TRULY so ignorant that you NEVER heard of the concept of a "tyranny of the majority?"

Are you such a dilettante devotee of democracy that you favor unconstrained "democracy" over checks and balances that serve to safeguard AGAINST a tyranny of a majority?

Thank the baby Jesus indeed that far wiser people than you PREVAILED at the birth of our Republic.

Democracy creates the checks and balances that the People, through their VOTE, and via MAJORITIES, want.

We only have a Bill of Rights because the MAJORITY wanted it. The rights of minorities that are protected in something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are only in place because a MAJORITY wanted them.

'Tyranny of the majority' is just a catchphrase used by minorities who want a tyranny of their own.

Blathering about 'tyranny of the majority' in order to scare people into abandoning that most basic foundational principle of democratic government to the point where disproportionate minority power is able to cripple the government to the point of making it non-functional is a crime AGAINST democracy.

I think you are confusing Majority Rule with Democracy. Democracy is a system which insures that the Government is responsible to both the majority and individuals. Majority Rule is a way of choosing. That's not Democracy. The only blathering I am reading around here is the asinine idea that majorities should decide everything, simply because the MAJORITY wanted it.

It should also be noted that Democracies historically have given birth to Tyrannical Regimes.

Majorities, if you include super-majorities, do decide everything.

The state of New York in 1788 ratified the Constitution, in convention, by THREE votes.

30 to 27. The authority under which the state of NY would be governed, indefinitely, was accepted despite

47% opposition to it. Were they tyrannized? that minority?

 

[rightwinger]

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

Leftwhiner:

Try to be honest when you "argue." You might have something to offer.

The reason we established a bicameral legislative body in the first place was to have the HOUSE serve more directly to represent the people. The People thus DO get to select their own representatives. So much for your disingenuous and false-premise "argument."

The SENATE, by contrast, was DESIGNED to be a bit less direct. That was done FOR an actual legitimate REASON.

And yes, it has proved to BE a mistake to make the election of Senators a direct election process. We tampered with the original Constitutional design in a manner that did prove to cause injury to the Republic.

Clearly, it is not always a mistake to fine tune the mechanisms crafted by the Founders and the Framers. They were wise enough to make provision for such things, in fact. BUT, still, sometimes when we engage in our efforts to fine tune the Constitutional framework, we DO make mistakes. For example: The income tax. A cluster-fuck of a mistake. Direct elections of U.S. Senators. A mistake.

Prohibition? A mistake. Hey. How about that? We corrected that one.

As to your last line, you are such a partisan (in a typically and sadly hack way) that you persist in viewing this discussion as a Democrat vs Republican proposition. I am not a Republican, so I certainly do not share your outlook. You are wrong. It is not a discussion about political party -- even though I acknowledge that some ramifications do impact on political party matters. But what Levin has identified and what this discussion is actually ABOUT goes far beyond party politics.

Allowing the vast mass of idiots more say in our government is one of the prime directives of the DimoRAT party.

I like that...

Shows how Conservatives view their fellow americans

 

[NYcarbineer]

What a moronic thing you just said. I'm not surprised, really.

Listen up: I do not consider democracy an evil. As a conservative, I endorse democracy, unlike you.

Like the Founders and the Framers and lots of other intelligent folks, however, I recognize that an unconstrained 'democracy" harbors within it the seeds of some serious problems.

Are you TRULY so ignorant that you NEVER heard of the concept of a "tyranny of the majority?"

Are you such a dilettante devotee of democracy that you favor unconstrained "democracy" over checks and balances that serve to safeguard AGAINST a tyranny of a majority?

Thank the baby Jesus indeed that far wiser people than you PREVAILED at the birth of our Republic.

Democracy creates the checks and balances that the People, through their VOTE, and via MAJORITIES, want.

We only have a Bill of Rights because the MAJORITY wanted it. The rights of minorities that are protected in something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are only in place because a MAJORITY wanted them.

'Tyranny of the majority' is just a catchphrase used by minorities who want a tyranny of their own.

Blathering about 'tyranny of the majority' in order to scare people into abandoning that most basic foundational principle of democratic government to the point where disproportionate minority power is able to cripple the government to the point of making it non-functional is a crime AGAINST democracy.

I think you are confusing Majority Rule with Democracy. Democracy is a system which insures that the Government is responsible to both the majority and individuals. Majority Rule is a way of choosing. That's not Democracy. The only blathering I am reading around here is the asinine idea that majorities should decide everything, simply because the MAJORITY wanted it.

It should also be noted that Democracies historically have given birth to Tyrannical Regimes.

The United States resists tyranny because it is large and diverse, and because it has a strong central government that is also,

by the democratic process that forms it, diverse.

Tyranny becomes more a danger the smaller the population gets that is governed. States rights and sovereignty don't prevent tyranny, they enable it.

 

[FA_Q2]

[The mistake was obliterating an entire power check on federal government through state representation.

Senators represent their states now.

btw, since there is no way the American People are by any measure even close to wanting to turn Senatorial elections over to their statehouses,

why can't people like you simply respect that? Or is that just another example of how the 'mob' is too stupid to govern itself?

Already answered a dozen times in this thread. Because you are so damn dishonest does not mean that I am going to placate your trolling over and over again.

 

[rightwinger]

What a brainwashing ATTEMPT RW...LIBERALS from WHAT TIMEFRAME?

YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR.

You have no concept of what a liberal is.....

Liberals evolve to meet the challenges of each generation. Liberalism is not frozen in time. A liberal looks at his society, examines what is wrong and tries to make it better

Our founding fathers were liberals, Lincoln was a liberal,FDR was liberal, JFK was a liberal

They believed different things but they were all liberals

You make the entire term liberal pointless. You have defined it in a way that means simply change. I guess we are ALL liberals then, even the conservatives here. Useless.

The reality is that there is a political ideology that has coopted the term liberal. Those that coopted that term do not believe in anything that remotely mirrors the goals of the founders whatsoever. To claim that you and they are in a similar political category is absolutely insane. Nothing that they stood for can be construed to be what you stand for. That is one of the reasons that liberals here are so damn quick to cast disparaging remarks about them every chance they get.

By your definition, I would be a liberal if I supported a complete police state where capital punishment was used by police for traffic violations and the powers of all the government were merged into an executive branch executed by all powerful police forces. That is certainly ‘different’ and covers ‘new’ territory. Do you not understand how worthless the word liberal defined in that manner becomes in a political discussion though?

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

People elect representative still and before the 17th oh grate constructor of straw men. The mistake was obliterating an entire power check on federal government through state representation.

It is conservatives who coopted the term liberal to mean anything they think is evil. In fact, today's liberals have much in common with our founders

They are willing to take risks to do what is right, they stand up for the common man, they seek new solutions for societies problems

Conservatives have never changed

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

You are fully wrong. Such is what we can expect from one with your crippled political ideology.

"Tyranny of the Majority" is FAR more than a catch phrase used by minorities. It was an expression of concern by the folks trying to craft a form of government -- cognizant of the potential for serious damage to those in the minority. It was one reason to CRAFT a series of various checks and balances.

You seem unable of unwilling to accept the historical fact, but that's ok. It doesn't go away just because you decline to see it or admit it. The FACT is: as much as the Founders and the Framers WANTED for the People to be sovereign, they also wanted to install institutional checks and balances to constrain the prospect for mischief inherent in a so-called "pure" democracy. They did not trust the people unreservedly. They did not believe that we should trust either the majority without reservation or the government without reservation.

They were right. You are wrong. While we do hold ultimate political authority, and ought to, we do not have easy access to the reigns of power. It was made (deliberately) difficult. This too is as it should be.

What advocates such as you propose (careless sloppy thinking leads you far astray) would take out those constraints. We would rue the day. We already are.

You and your childish way of thinking would have us remove the circuit breakers. You are a danger to the civil society.

Did the majority pass the Bill of Rights or not?

Any legislation that has ever passed was passed by a majority of the representatives. Do you think you are making any point with such platitude-laden "questions?" Because, you aren't, Carby.

btw, aren't you one who constantly complains about unelected judges overturning the will of the majority?

No. I do have some issues with the manner by which certain judges and courts make their judicial rulings. But I haven't said diddly dick about "overturning" the "will of the majority." Since you don't know what you are talking about, I must credit the fact that you "ask" such faux "questions" to your inclination to deflect by way of dishonesty.

 

[AmazonTania]

Democracy creates the checks and balances that the People, through their VOTE, and via MAJORITIES, want.

We only have a Bill of Rights because the MAJORITY wanted it. The rights of minorities that are protected in something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are only in place because a MAJORITY wanted them.

'Tyranny of the majority' is just a catchphrase used by minorities who want a tyranny of their own.

Blathering about 'tyranny of the majority' in order to scare people into abandoning that most basic foundational principle of democratic government to the point where disproportionate minority power is able to cripple the government to the point of making it non-functional is a crime AGAINST democracy.

I think you are confusing Majority Rule with Democracy. Democracy is a system which insures that the Government is responsible to both the majority and individuals. Majority Rule is a way of choosing. That's not Democracy. The only blathering I am reading around here is the asinine idea that majorities should decide everything, simply because the MAJORITY wanted it.

It should also be noted that Democracies historically have given birth to Tyrannical Regimes.

Majorities, if you include super-majorities, do decide everything.

This explains the severe erosion of autonomy and individual rights since. A Democratic constitution must have (1) a limit on what we can decide collectively and (2) the process of which we can decide.

The problem with majority rule is that the majority may want to decide everything, not just the issues set about in the proper domain set out by the constitution.

The state of New York in 1788 ratified the Constitution, in convention, by THREE votes.

30 to 27. The authority under which the state of NY would be governed, indefinitely, was accepted despite

47% opposition to it. Were they tyrannized? that minority?

Aside from that being a terrible example, which would depend on how majority decision affected the rights of the 47% as individuals. Not that there were and explicit underlying rights to start with. As I've said before, Democracies must be accountable to majorities and individuals.

I'll give you a better example: Kelo vs. City of New London (2005). Ms. Kelo had an old house in an old section in New London, Connecticut. A private real estate developer offered Ms Kelo for her house because he wanted to build on the land, but she said that she wasn't interested. The developer could have offered her more to convince her to sell voluntarily, but he had a better idea. He went to City Hall and convinced the Council that everyone would be better off if the house were torn down and condos were built in its place.

Since the majority of citizens in the local area decided that they preferred the greater tax revenue, the city council said 'yes.'

 

[AmazonTania]

Democracy creates the checks and balances that the People, through their VOTE, and via MAJORITIES, want.

We only have a Bill of Rights because the MAJORITY wanted it. The rights of minorities that are protected in something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are only in place because a MAJORITY wanted them.

'Tyranny of the majority' is just a catchphrase used by minorities who want a tyranny of their own.

Blathering about 'tyranny of the majority' in order to scare people into abandoning that most basic foundational principle of democratic government to the point where disproportionate minority power is able to cripple the government to the point of making it non-functional is a crime AGAINST democracy.

I think you are confusing Majority Rule with Democracy. Democracy is a system which insures that the Government is responsible to both the majority and individuals. Majority Rule is a way of choosing. That's not Democracy. The only blathering I am reading around here is the asinine idea that majorities should decide everything, simply because the MAJORITY wanted it.

It should also be noted that Democracies historically have given birth to Tyrannical Regimes.

The United States resists tyranny because it is large and diverse, and because it has a strong central government that is also,

by the democratic process that forms it, diverse.

Tyranny becomes more a danger the smaller the population gets that is governed. States rights and sovereignty don't prevent tyranny, they enable it.

All you've really done was replaced the Tyranny of a King with a much large group or specific groups of people. You've had a greater loss of autonomy the larger and more diverse the population has become.

That essentially is Tyranny.

 

[velvtacheeze]

If drinking is so damaging to your health, why are you a heavy drinker?

Answer: because people often make mistakes.

Waking up and recognizing a mistake can often lead to a profound desire to undo it.

It is not a valid or reasonable or intelligent answer to an effort to correct some mistake to say, "if it's so bad, why did we do it in the first place?"

Because we made a mistake.

It is time to correct the mistake.

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

Leftwhiner:

Try to be honest when you "argue." You might have something to offer.

The reason we established a bicameral legislative body in the first place was to have the HOUSE serve more directly to represent the people. The People thus DO get to select their own representatives. So much for your disingenuous and false-premise "argument."

The SENATE, by contrast, was DESIGNED to be a bit less direct. That was done FOR an actual legitimate REASON.

And yes, it has proved to BE a mistake to make the election of Senators a direct election process. We tampered with the original Constitutional design in a manner that did prove to cause injury to the Republic.

Clearly, it is not always a mistake to fine tune the mechanisms crafted by the Founders and the Framers. They were wise enough to make provision for such things, in fact. BUT, still, sometimes when we engage in our efforts to fine tune the Constitutional framework, we DO make mistakes. For example: The income tax. A cluster-fuck of a mistake. Direct elections of U.S. Senators. A mistake.

Prohibition? A mistake. Hey. How about that? We corrected that one.

As to your last line, you are such a partisan (in a typically and sadly hack way) that you persist in viewing this discussion as a Democrat vs Republican proposition. I am not a Republican, so I certainly do not share your outlook. You are wrong. It is not a discussion about political party -- even though I acknowledge that some ramifications do impact on political party matters. But what Levin has identified and what this discussion is actually ABOUT goes far beyond party politics.

The mistake of giving state legislatures the power to elect Senators was corrected by the 17th amendment. No doubt there were many good reasons why the people of that era wanted it. I'm not going to question their wisdom.

 

[FA_Q2]

You have no concept of what a liberal is.....

Liberals evolve to meet the challenges of each generation. Liberalism is not frozen in time. A liberal looks at his society, examines what is wrong and tries to make it better

Our founding fathers were liberals, Lincoln was a liberal,FDR was liberal, JFK was a liberal

They believed different things but they were all liberals

You make the entire term liberal pointless. You have defined it in a way that means simply change. I guess we are ALL liberals then, even the conservatives here. Useless.

The reality is that there is a political ideology that has coopted the term liberal. Those that coopted that term do not believe in anything that remotely mirrors the goals of the founders whatsoever. To claim that you and they are in a similar political category is absolutely insane. Nothing that they stood for can be construed to be what you stand for. That is one of the reasons that liberals here are so damn quick to cast disparaging remarks about them every chance they get.

By your definition, I would be a liberal if I supported a complete police state where capital punishment was used by police for traffic violations and the powers of all the government were merged into an executive branch executed by all powerful police forces. That is certainly ‘different’ and covers ‘new’ territory. Do you not understand how worthless the word liberal defined in that manner becomes in a political discussion though?

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

People elect representative still and before the 17th oh grate constructor of straw men. The mistake was obliterating an entire power check on federal government through state representation.

It is conservatives who coopted the term liberal to mean anything they think is evil. In fact, today's liberals have much in common with our founders

They are willing to take risks to do what is right, they stand up for the common man, they seek new solutions for societies problems

Conservatives have never changed

Your lies reek of absolute shit. There is a reason that you use vague and uncertain terms like ‘take risks’ and ‘standing up for the common man’ because you don’t actually have anything of meaning to state.

 

[AmazonTania]

You have no concept of what a liberal is.....

Liberals evolve to meet the challenges of each generation. Liberalism is not frozen in time. A liberal looks at his society, examines what is wrong and tries to make it better

Our founding fathers were liberals, Lincoln was a liberal,FDR was liberal, JFK was a liberal

They believed different things but they were all liberals

You make the entire term liberal pointless. You have defined it in a way that means simply change. I guess we are ALL liberals then, even the conservatives here. Useless.

The reality is that there is a political ideology that has coopted the term liberal. Those that coopted that term do not believe in anything that remotely mirrors the goals of the founders whatsoever. To claim that you and they are in a similar political category is absolutely insane. Nothing that they stood for can be construed to be what you stand for. That is one of the reasons that liberals here are so damn quick to cast disparaging remarks about them every chance they get.

By your definition, I would be a liberal if I supported a complete police state where capital punishment was used by police for traffic violations and the powers of all the government were merged into an executive branch executed by all powerful police forces. That is certainly ‘different’ and covers ‘new’ territory. Do you not understand how worthless the word liberal defined in that manner becomes in a political discussion though?

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

People elect representative still and before the 17th oh grate constructor of straw men. The mistake was obliterating an entire power check on federal government through state representation.

It is conservatives who coopted the term liberal to mean anything they think is evil. In fact, today's liberals have much in common with our founders

They are willing to take risks to do what is right, they stand up for the common man, they seek new solutions for societies problems

So when the founders implied the 'Pursuit of Happiness' in the Declaration of Independence, it meant to stand of up for the common man. Not by making sure he pursues his own happiness, but making sure it's provided for him.

Brilliant! I would have never actually interpreted it that way at all...

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think you are confusing Majority Rule with Democracy. Democracy is a system which insures that the Government is responsible to both the majority and individuals. Majority Rule is a way of choosing. That's not Democracy. The only blathering I am reading around here is the asinine idea that majorities should decide everything, simply because the MAJORITY wanted it.

It should also be noted that Democracies historically have given birth to Tyrannical Regimes.

Majorities, if you include super-majorities, do decide everything.

This explains the severe erosion of autonomy and individual rights since. A Democratic constitution must have (1) a limit on what we can decide collectively and (2) the process of which we can decide.

The problem with majority rule is that the majority may want to decide everything, not just the issues set about in the proper domain set out by the constitution.

The state of New York in 1788 ratified the Constitution, in convention, by THREE votes.

30 to 27. The authority under which the state of NY would be governed, indefinitely, was accepted despite

47% opposition to it. Were they tyrannized? that minority?

Aside from that being a terrible example, which would depend on how majority decision affected the rights of the 47% as individuals. Not that there were and explicit underlying rights to start with. As I've said before, Democracies must be accountable to majorities and individuals.

I'll give you a better example: Kelo vs. City of New London (2005). Ms. Kelo had an old house in an old section in New London, Connecticut. A private real estate developer offered Ms Kelo for her house because he wanted to build on the land, but she said that she wasn't interested. The developer could have offered her more to convince her to sell voluntarily, but he had a better idea. He went to City Hall and convinced the Council that everyone would be better off if the house were torn down and condos were built in its place.

Since the majority of citizens in the local area decided that they preferred the greater tax revenue, the city council said 'yes.'

But the Supreme Court upheld that taking by a single vote. The action was held accountable, to the highest court in the land and still lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think you are confusing Majority Rule with Democracy. Democracy is a system which insures that the Government is responsible to both the majority and individuals. Majority Rule is a way of choosing. That's not Democracy. The only blathering I am reading around here is the asinine idea that majorities should decide everything, simply because the MAJORITY wanted it.

It should also be noted that Democracies historically have given birth to Tyrannical Regimes.

The United States resists tyranny because it is large and diverse, and because it has a strong central government that is also,

by the democratic process that forms it, diverse.

Tyranny becomes more a danger the smaller the population gets that is governed. States rights and sovereignty don't prevent tyranny, they enable it.

All you've really done was replaced the Tyranny of a King with a much large group or specific groups of people. You've had a greater loss of autonomy the larger and more diverse the population has become.

That essentially is Tyranny.

No you don't. The Kings weren't elected.

Example: If you're the state of Alabama in the 1950's, you have institutionalized segregration, racism, discrimination in place, all of which are examples of tyranny of a minority,

because you have the majority government of the state of Alabama behind it.

In 1964, the big central government, with the majority support drawn from ALL the diverse states, not just Alabama, comes along and outlaws the practices.

Question:

was it the smaller government or the bigger government holding the power that was better able to end the tyranny over the colored minority in the state of Alabama?

 

[AmazonTania]

Majorities, if you include super-majorities, do decide everything.

This explains the severe erosion of autonomy and individual rights since. A Democratic constitution must have (1) a limit on what we can decide collectively and (2) the process of which we can decide.

The problem with majority rule is that the majority may want to decide everything, not just the issues set about in the proper domain set out by the constitution.

The state of New York in 1788 ratified the Constitution, in convention, by THREE votes.

30 to 27. The authority under which the state of NY would be governed, indefinitely, was accepted despite

47% opposition to it. Were they tyrannized? that minority?

Aside from that being a terrible example, which would depend on how majority decision affected the rights of the 47% as individuals. Not that there were and explicit underlying rights to start with. As I've said before, Democracies must be accountable to majorities and individuals.

I'll give you a better example: Kelo vs. City of New London (2005). Ms. Kelo had an old house in an old section in New London, Connecticut. A private real estate developer offered Ms Kelo for her house because he wanted to build on the land, but she said that she wasn't interested. The developer could have offered her more to convince her to sell voluntarily, but he had a better idea. He went to City Hall and convinced the Council that everyone would be better off if the house were torn down and condos were built in its place.

Since the majority of citizens in the local area decided that they preferred the greater tax revenue, the city council said 'yes.'

But the Supreme Court upheld that taking by a single vote. The action was held accountable, to the highest court in the land and still lost.

The account was held accountable by the majority, not the individual. The Fifth Amendment is clear: "...Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This was clearly not a public use. The Government was private property from one citizen and giving it to another private party. The Supreme Court upheld the decision as the increase taxes would serve a 'public purpose.' In the spirit of benefiting the majority, the Supreme Court denied an individual right of another person. That is wrong.

The Government must protect the individual, their rights and their property, even if the majority wants something else. That is an essential part of the US constitution and the democracy.

 

[rightwinger]

You make the entire term liberal pointless. You have defined it in a way that means simply change. I guess we are ALL liberals then, even the conservatives here. Useless.

The reality is that there is a political ideology that has coopted the term liberal. Those that coopted that term do not believe in anything that remotely mirrors the goals of the founders whatsoever. To claim that you and they are in a similar political category is absolutely insane. Nothing that they stood for can be construed to be what you stand for. That is one of the reasons that liberals here are so damn quick to cast disparaging remarks about them every chance they get.

By your definition, I would be a liberal if I supported a complete police state where capital punishment was used by police for traffic violations and the powers of all the government were merged into an executive branch executed by all powerful police forces. That is certainly ‘different’ and covers ‘new’ territory. Do you not understand how worthless the word liberal defined in that manner becomes in a political discussion though?


People elect representative still and before the 17th oh grate constructor of straw men. The mistake was obliterating an entire power check on federal government through state representation.

It is conservatives who coopted the term liberal to mean anything they think is evil. In fact, today's liberals have much in common with our founders

They are willing to take risks to do what is right, they stand up for the common man, they seek new solutions for societies problems

So when the founders implied the 'Pursuit of Happiness' in the Declaration of Independence, it meant to stand of up for the common man. Not by making sure he pursues his own happiness, but making sure it's provided for him.

Brilliant! I would have never actually interpreted it that way at all...

I have no idea what you are blabbering about

I see no laws from liberals guaranteeing that happiness will be provided for you

Do you?

 

[AmazonTania]

The United States resists tyranny because it is large and diverse, and because it has a strong central government that is also,

by the democratic process that forms it, diverse.

Tyranny becomes more a danger the smaller the population gets that is governed. States rights and sovereignty don't prevent tyranny, they enable it.

All you've really done was replaced the Tyranny of a King with a much large group or specific groups of people. You've had a greater loss of autonomy the larger and more diverse the population has become.

That essentially is Tyranny.

No you don't. The Kings weren't elected.

Example: If you're the state of Alabama in the 1950's, you have institutionalized segregration, racism, discrimination in place, all of which are examples of tyranny of a minority,

because you have the majority government of the state of Alabama behind it.

In 1964, the big central government, with the majority support drawn from ALL the diverse states, not just Alabama, comes along and outlaws the practices.

You are confused. The majority decided that upon the implementation and enactment upon discrimination laws by electing the very bureaucracy used to design these laws.

Representatives are accountable to their constituents. That's why there are called, representatives. To try and massage this into the 'tyranny of the minority' as if these elected officials legislate policy, ultimately accountable to no one is intellectually dishonest.

Question:

was it the smaller government or the bigger government holding the power that was better able to end the tyranny over the colored minority in the state of Alabama?

You do understand that smaller government involves the repealing of laws and regulations, correct?