Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[AmazonTania]

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?

Plenty.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Plenty.

Well researched answer

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.



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.

The individual appealed the taking in the Courts and lost. You're confusing a decision you don't like as a process you don't like. There are plenty of conservatives around USMB who don't think the Supreme Court should even have the power of judicial review,

because it's not explicitly given that power in the Constitution. In that case, Kelo wouldn't even have had a chance to petitition the Court.

Ironically, states like California reacted to Kelo by prohibiting the practice with a referendum vote -

direct democracy in action - that amended the CA constitution.

So go ahead and condemn that, lol.

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

The individual appealed the taking in the Courts and lost. You're confusing a decision you don't like as a process you don't like. There are plenty of conservatives around USMB who don't think the Supreme Court should even have the power of judicial review,

because it's not explicitly given that power in the Constitution. In that case, Kelo wouldn't even have had a chance to petitition the Court.

Ironically, states like California reacted to Kelo by prohibiting the practice with a referendum vote -

direct democracy in action - that amended the CA constitution.

So go ahead and condemn that, lol.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even talking about judicial review. I'm merely telling you that Democracy is not to be confused with Majority Rule. The willy of the majority can never trump the rights of the individual, which are protected by the foundation of the Bill of Rights.

If you want to set the precedent where your rights as an individual can be deny by the will of the majority, be my guess. I can't promise that you will like the results. Ironically, the same people who are for liberty, are really not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Alabama is a smaller place than the entire United States. Will you acknowledge that?

that is the smaller and larger I'm referring to.

States rights lead to tyranny of the majority because one state tends to be less diverse than all states taken together.

You could find enough votes in the state of Alabama to legislate segregation and discrimination,

you did not have enough votes in the whole of the U.S. to allow Alabama to do that.

Alabama's state government's tyranny over the colored minority could only stand if it retained sufficient power at the state level,

because the big central government wanted to take that power away from Alabama.

 

[AmazonTania]

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?

Plenty.

Well researched answer

Ditto.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Question:

"Is a government big enough to give you everything you want, a government big enough to take away everything that you have."?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The individual appealed the taking in the Courts and lost. You're confusing a decision you don't like as a process you don't like. There are plenty of conservatives around USMB who don't think the Supreme Court should even have the power of judicial review,

because it's not explicitly given that power in the Constitution. In that case, Kelo wouldn't even have had a chance to petitition the Court.

Ironically, states like California reacted to Kelo by prohibiting the practice with a referendum vote -

direct democracy in action - that amended the CA constitution.

So go ahead and condemn that, lol.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even talking about judicial review. I'm merely telling you that Democracy is not to be confused with Majority Rule. The willy of the majority can never trump the rights of the individual, which are protected by the foundation of the Bill of Rights.

If you want to set the precedent where your rights as an individual can be deny by the will of the majority, be my guess. I can't promise that you will like the results. Ironically, the same people who are for liberty, are really not.

Again, the Bill of Rights is only there because a majority agreed to put it there.

We onto a chicken/egg question here. Which came first, minority rights, or the securing of those rights for the minority by the majority?

I say the latter. Minority rights and protections do not appear out of nowhere. You need votes by majorities to secure them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Question:

"Is a government big enough to give you everything you want, a government big enough to take away everything that you have."?

.

Then get the federal government out of the business of securing your rights and let the states each decide what your rights will or won't be. Is that what you want? A central government, for example, too weak to protect your 2nd amendment rights?

 

[Contumacious]

The individual appealed the taking in the Courts and lost. You're confusing a decision you don't like as a process you don't like. There are plenty of conservatives around USMB who don't think the Supreme Court should even have the power of judicial review,

because it's not explicitly given that power in the Constitution. In that case, Kelo wouldn't even have had a chance to petitition the Court.

Ironically, states like California reacted to Kelo by prohibiting the practice with a referendum vote -

direct democracy in action - that amended the CA constitution.

So go ahead and condemn that, lol.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even talking about judicial review. I'm merely telling you that Democracy is not to be confused with Majority Rule. The willy of the majority can never trump the rights of the individual, which are protected by the foundation of the Bill of Rights.

If you want to set the precedent where your rights as an individual can be deny by the will of the majority, be my guess. I can't promise that you will like the results. Ironically, the same people who are for liberty, are really not.

Again, the Bill of Rights is only there because a majority agreed to put it there.

We onto a chicken/egg question here. Which came first, minority rights, or the securing of those rights for the minority by the majority?

I say the latter. Minority rights and protections do not appear out of nowhere. You need votes by majorities to secure them.

So, when the 35,000,000 millions Germans (the majority) voted for Adolf Hitler and permitted that he transgress upon 6,000,000 million Jews , is that because majorities get to decide whose rights will be secured?

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Question:

"Is a government big enough to give you everything you want, a government big enough to take away everything that you have."?

.

Then get the federal government out of the business of securing your rights and let the states each decide what your rights will or won't be. Is that what you want? A central government, for example, too weak to protect your 2nd amendment rights?

The reason the founding fathers wanted Senators to be elected the states was to PREVENT THE CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN DC.

.

 

[AmazonTania]

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?

Alabama is a smaller place than the entire United States. Will you acknowledge that?

that is the smaller and larger I'm referring to.

States rights lead to tyranny of the majority because one state tends to be less diverse than all states taken together.

I don't know what you think the size of the government entails, but it really has zero to do with the size of the State or it's state legislator. It does, however, have anything to do with the overall influence the government has on each sector of the Economy, and/or the influence the Government has on your life. You can essentially have more representatives and the Government can still have less influence on the economy, or social aspects of the citizens inhabiting the country.

You could find enough votes in the state of Alabama to legislate segregation and discrimination,

you did not have enough votes in the whole of the U.S. to allow Alabama to do that.

Alabama's state government's tyranny over the colored minority could only stand if it retained sufficient power at the state level,

because the big central government wanted to take that power away from Alabama.

The State government is elected and accountable to the people. The state could have easily eliminated all statues of the Jim Crow laws if it wanted to. That is the tyranny of the majority. If you can't understand that, I can't help you.

Also, you should know that 2,454 pages were removed from federal register around the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, starting from 1964 up until 1966.

That's a funny definition of a bigger central government. That's practically deregulation at it's finest. Not the phony deregulation everyone is complaining about today.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The individual appealed the taking in the Courts and lost. You're confusing a decision you don't like as a process you don't like. There are plenty of conservatives around USMB who don't think the Supreme Court should even have the power of judicial review,

because it's not explicitly given that power in the Constitution. In that case, Kelo wouldn't even have had a chance to petitition the Court.

Ironically, states like California reacted to Kelo by prohibiting the practice with a referendum vote -

direct democracy in action - that amended the CA constitution.

So go ahead and condemn that, lol.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even talking about judicial review. I'm merely telling you that Democracy is not to be confused with Majority Rule. The willy of the majority can never trump the rights of the individual, which are protected by the foundation of the Bill of Rights.

If you want to set the precedent where your rights as an individual can be deny by the will of the majority, be my guess. I can't promise that you will like the results. Ironically, the same people who are for liberty, are really not.

So was Proposition 8 in California 'tyranny of the majority'?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

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.

We don't even need the Senate. The Senate needs to be abolished. They know it but they aren't about to give up one of the best jobs in the world and certainly the best white men's club in America.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The State government is elected and accountable to the people. The state could have easily eliminated all statues of the Jim Crow laws if it wanted to. That is the tyranny of the majority. If you can't understand that, I can't help you.

.

What is tyranny of the majority? Alabama's Jim Crow laws?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even talking about judicial review. I'm merely telling you that Democracy is not to be confused with Majority Rule. The willy of the majority can never trump the rights of the individual, which are protected by the foundation of the Bill of Rights.

If you want to set the precedent where your rights as an individual can be deny by the will of the majority, be my guess. I can't promise that you will like the results. Ironically, the same people who are for liberty, are really not.

Again, the Bill of Rights is only there because a majority agreed to put it there.

We onto a chicken/egg question here. Which came first, minority rights, or the securing of those rights for the minority by the majority?

I say the latter. Minority rights and protections do not appear out of nowhere. You need votes by majorities to secure them.

So, when the 35,000,000 millions Germans (the majority) voted for Adolf Hitler and permitted that he transgress upon 6,000,000 million Jews , is that because majorities get to decide whose rights will be secured?

They certainly do. How long did slavery last after the Constitution was ratified?

 

[Contumacious]

[

So was Proposition 8 in California 'tyranny of the majority'?

You continue to miss the point. The Founding Fathers placed provisos in the Constitution which would act as electrical Fuses or Circuit Breakers.

Those safety devices have been removed by state supremacists.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Again, the Bill of Rights is only there because a majority agreed to put it there.

We onto a chicken/egg question here. Which came first, minority rights, or the securing of those rights for the minority by the majority?

I say the latter. Minority rights and protections do not appear out of nowhere. You need votes by majorities to secure them.

So, when the 35,000,000 millions Germans (the majority) voted for Adolf Hitler and permitted that he transgress upon 6,000,000 million Jews , is that because majorities get to decide whose rights will be secured?

They certainly do. How long did slavery last after the Constitution was ratified?

How is that relevant?

The states joined the union knowing that some of their brethren practiced slavery.

.

 

[AmazonTania]

The individual appealed the taking in the Courts and lost. You're confusing a decision you don't like as a process you don't like. There are plenty of conservatives around USMB who don't think the Supreme Court should even have the power of judicial review,

because it's not explicitly given that power in the Constitution. In that case, Kelo wouldn't even have had a chance to petitition the Court.

Ironically, states like California reacted to Kelo by prohibiting the practice with a referendum vote -

direct democracy in action - that amended the CA constitution.

So go ahead and condemn that, lol.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even talking about judicial review. I'm merely telling you that Democracy is not to be confused with Majority Rule. The willy of the majority can never trump the rights of the individual, which are protected by the foundation of the Bill of Rights.

If you want to set the precedent where your rights as an individual can be deny by the will of the majority, be my guess. I can't promise that you will like the results. Ironically, the same people who are for liberty, are really not.

Again, the Bill of Rights is only there because a majority agreed to put it there.

We onto a chicken/egg question here. Which came first, minority rights, or the securing of those rights for the minority by the majority?

I say the latter. Minority rights and protections do not appear out of nowhere. You need votes by majorities to secure them.

The Bill of Rights was put into place because majority of people decided it would best protect them as individuals. They are explicit limits upon how the Government must protect you, even if the majority wants something else. You are still confusing Democracy with Majority Rule.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was written in August 1789. Most people would claim that the French were creating a democracy, but look at their Protection of Religion, Speech and of the Press.

Article 10:"No one is to be disquieted because of his opinions, even religious, provided that their manifestation does not disturb the public order by law."

Article 11:"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

Rules like these do not limit majorities. These rules state that you can say or write anything, so long as it's not against the law. What kind of protection is that?

The US Bill of Rights was written a month later.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's a clear and explicit protection against the majority. It's not outlined, 'don't break the law.' It's outlined, 'don't make the law. You are advocating that the Government can make any law it wants, simply because the will of the majority demands it. That is a dangerous precedent to follow.

 

[The T]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even talking about judicial review. I'm merely telling you that Democracy is not to be confused with Majority Rule. The willy of the majority can never trump the rights of the individual, which are protected by the foundation of the Bill of Rights.

If you want to set the precedent where your rights as an individual can be deny by the will of the majority, be my guess. I can't promise that you will like the results. Ironically, the same people who are for liberty, are really not.

Again, the Bill of Rights is only there because a majority agreed to put it there.

We onto a chicken/egg question here. Which came first, minority rights, or the securing of those rights for the minority by the majority?

I say the latter. Minority rights and protections do not appear out of nowhere. You need votes by majorities to secure them.

The Bill of Rights was put into place because majority of people decided it would best protect them as individuals. They are explicit limits upon how the Government must protect you, even if the majority wants something else. You are still confusing Democracy with Majority Rule.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was written in August 1789. Most people would claim that the French were creating a democracy, but look at their Protection of Religion, Speech and of the Press.

Article 10:"No one is to be disquieted because of his opinions, even religious, provided that their manifestation does not disturb the public order by law."

Article 11:"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

Rules like these do not limit majorities. These rules say that you cannot do or say anything that isn't against the law. What kind of protection is that?

The US Bill of Rights was written a month later.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's a clear and explicit protection against the majority. It's not outlined, 'don't break the law.' It's outlined, 'don't make the law. You are advocating that the Government can make any law it wants, simply because the will of the majority demands it. That is a dangerous precedent to follow.

And it leads to tyranny. Always has. This is what they will never understand. We are now in a 'soft tyranny'. How long before this government unleashes?

All we can do is try to educate, and warn.