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.
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'?
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.
.
Each state has two senators. Whether directly elected or appointed, how does that effect the concentration of power in DC?
Because Senators being appointed by the State legislatures would better serve the interest of the States.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.
.
Each state has two senators. Whether directly elected or appointed, how does that effect the concentration of power in DC?
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.
Because Senators being appointed by the State legislatures would better serve the interest of the States.The reason the founding fathers wanted Senators to be elected the states was to PREVENT THE CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN DC.
.
Each state has two senators. Whether directly elected or appointed, how does that effect the concentration of power in DC?
It was a move to counter the popular vote the people had with the HOR. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to prevent the federal government from indirectly absconding with the powers and funds of the states.
Now the Senate isn't any better than the House...just look at Harry Reid and him blocking everything coming from the House...
You don't know history of this Republic or it's design, and you show it very well. Just tow that Statist design. You reek of it.
Nice try at diversion. Go educate yourself on original construct of the Constitution, and the intent of the Founders.Because Senators being appointed by the State legislatures would better serve the interest of the States.Each state has two senators. Whether directly elected or appointed, how does that effect the concentration of power in DC?
It was a move to counter the popular vote the people had with the HOR. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to prevent the federal government from indirectly absconding with the powers and funds of the states.
Now the Senate isn't any better than the House...just look at Harry Reid and him blocking everything coming from the House...
You don't know history of this Republic or it's design, and you show it very well. Just tow that Statist design. You reek of it.
The interests of back room state politicians or the interests of the people of that state?
Let the Senators answer to the people, not the politicians who have bought them
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.
.
Each state has two senators. Whether directly elected or appointed, how does that effect the concentration of power in DC?
First clue where you are wrong, and what we are not, and never intended to be.GOPers, Libretardians, and Constitutionazis see us, the people, as a mob of zombies, howling and screeching, pounding on the doors of the legislative bribe-market! Mindlessly mumbling, we are a clear and present danger to the republic on which they stand and replace it with our horrifying democracy! Their mirrors are out to get them.
Paranoia creates the munchies. Got your plutocratic popcorn ready? Free Kool-Aid provided at the Supreme Court food court.
Hypocrites one and all.
the Framers.
Conservatives are the ones willing to lay down their lives for the Constitution. .
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'?
Yes. The electorate gives government the power to regulate marriage as it sees fit. As a consequence, the electorate gave the government the power to regulate which types of parties cannot marry.
The idea that a big central government can grant the liberty people seek through the democratic progress is false.
Founding fathers were indeed classic liberals. Ahead of their time. Charting new territory. Unafraid to try new things
Just like today's liberals
GOPers, Libretardians, and Constitutionazis see us, the people, as a mob of zombies, howling and screeching, pounding on the doors of the legislative bribe-market! Mindlessly mumbling, we are a clear and present danger to the republic on which they stand and replace it with our horrifying democracy! Their mirrors are out to get them.
Paranoia creates the munchies. Got your plutocratic popcorn ready? Free Kool-Aid provided at the Supreme Court food court.
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.
Yes, I'm sure you NEVER question the "wisdom" of the majority vote . . . until they vote for something you don't like, you frigging hypocrite. Go piss on someone else's leg and try to convince them it's raining.
The "wise majority" also voted for Prohibition, remember. I'll bet hard cash you would have "questioned their wisdom" on that one, had you been there. The majority in the states voted for restrictions on abortion, and I know for a fact that you applaud the overturning of THAT majority vote by a handful of unelected lawyers in black dresses, and ditto the consistent majority votes against "gay marriage"; so again, fucking spare us your sanctimonious bullshit lies about your reverence for the majority, okay? You may be stupid enough to believe the garbage that spews from your piehole, but you're the only one.
So was Proposition 8 in California 'tyranny of the majority'?
Yes. The electorate gives government the power to regulate marriage as it sees fit. As a consequence, the electorate gave the government the power to regulate which types of parties cannot marry.
The idea that a big central government can grant the liberty people seek through the democratic progress is false.
Let me first say, Amazon, that I am very much enjoying your posts.
Second, I would like to clarify this, because there is way too much imprecise language on this topic - and many others.
The people do not give the government the power to regulate who can and cannot marry. What they give the government is the power to decide which unions it will officially recognize. This is because it is completely unworkable and anarchic for the government and society to officially, legally sanction all possible permutations of a relationship/domestic arrangement that human beings might dream up, and there is no compelling public interest in doing so. No, "It's not fair", "That's mean!", and "I want to feel validated" do not constitute a compelling public interest.
No one is stopping anyone from setting up any sort of domestic arrangement they wish, no matter how much some people are convinced that they require public approbation for their choices in order to make them.
I posted the Federalist papers aka Madison,
Which is exactly why they compromised on the Senate. Originally they were going to allow Congressional Reps to select Senators, but decided on State Legislatures. Thus the State Gov't could be the watch dog of its own Senators.
They were very careful to apply as many checks .
So was Proposition 8 in California 'tyranny of the majority'?
Yes. The electorate gives government the power to regulate marriage as it sees fit. As a consequence, the electorate gave the government the power to regulate which types of parties cannot marry.
The idea that a big central government can grant the liberty people seek through the democratic progress is false.
Let me first say, Amazon, that I am very much enjoying your posts.
Second, I would like to clarify this, because there is way too much imprecise language on this topic - and many others.
The people do not give the government the power to regulate who can and cannot marry. What they give the government is the power to decide which unions it will officially recognize. This is because it is completely unworkable and anarchic for the government and society to officially, legally sanction all possible permutations of a relationship/domestic arrangement that human beings might dream up, and there is no compelling public interest in doing so. No, "It's not fair", "That's mean!", and "I want to feel validated" do not constitute a compelling public interest.
No one is stopping anyone from setting up any sort of domestic arrangement they wish, no matter how much some people are convinced that they require public approbation for their choices in order to make them.
That would pre-suppose that gay=race. Surprise. It's NOT the same, nor will it ever be.Yes. The electorate gives government the power to regulate marriage as it sees fit. As a consequence, the electorate gave the government the power to regulate which types of parties cannot marry.
The idea that a big central government can grant the liberty people seek through the democratic progress is false.
Let me first say, Amazon, that I am very much enjoying your posts.
Second, I would like to clarify this, because there is way too much imprecise language on this topic - and many others.
The people do not give the government the power to regulate who can and cannot marry. What they give the government is the power to decide which unions it will officially recognize. This is because it is completely unworkable and anarchic for the government and society to officially, legally sanction all possible permutations of a relationship/domestic arrangement that human beings might dream up, and there is no compelling public interest in doing so. No, "It's not fair", "That's mean!", and "I want to feel validated" do not constitute a compelling public interest.
No one is stopping anyone from setting up any sort of domestic arrangement they wish, no matter how much some people are convinced that they require public approbation for their choices in order to make them.
Nonsense.
No one is talking about setting up any sort of 'domestic arrangement.'
At issue is the states refusal to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment; where same-sex couples already possess that inalienable right, a right that cannot be denied by any government or referendum.
Yes. The electorate gives government the power to regulate marriage as it sees fit. As a consequence, the electorate gave the government the power to regulate which types of parties cannot marry.
The idea that a big central government can grant the liberty people seek through the democratic progress is false.
Let me first say, Amazon, that I am very much enjoying your posts.
Second, I would like to clarify this, because there is way too much imprecise language on this topic - and many others.
The people do not give the government the power to regulate who can and cannot marry. What they give the government is the power to decide which unions it will officially recognize. This is because it is completely unworkable and anarchic for the government and society to officially, legally sanction all possible permutations of a relationship/domestic arrangement that human beings might dream up, and there is no compelling public interest in doing so. No, "It's not fair", "That's mean!", and "I want to feel validated" do not constitute a compelling public interest.
No one is stopping anyone from setting up any sort of domestic arrangement they wish, no matter how much some people are convinced that they require public approbation for their choices in order to make them.
Nonsense.
No one is talking about setting up any sort of 'domestic arrangement.'
At issue is the states’ refusal to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws, as required by the 14th Amendment; where same-sex couples already possess that inalienable right, a right that cannot be denied by any government or referendum.
