Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[NYcarbineer]

I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

Again, we can't have anything other than majority rule. Even the idea of repealing/changing the 17th amendment depends on a super-majority agreeing to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

.

No, the reason each state got 2 senators is because some sort of concession had to be made to the smaller states to get them to sign on. Not unlike the 3/5ths compromise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

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.

.

The election of Senators was changed by an AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

The founding fathers put the amendment process in the Constitution for exactly that purpose.

You have NO support for repealing the 17th amendment outside of your rightwing cult.

Give it up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

We do not have majority rule

We have a majority electing representatives

Elected Representatives act on the behalf of the consensus of the majority. That's Majority Rule.

Elected representatives may also act predicated on their own good conscience and good faith, even if it conflicts with the consensus of the majority.

Indeed, this is why senators and the president are not subject to direct elections by the voters, to allow both to act in a manner based on facts and evidence, not the capricious, volatile whims of the public.

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

Equal Protection means equal justice under the law. That has nothing to do with marriage and is not protected under the 14th amendment. A private institution (Church, Mosque, Chapel, or Temple) can deny the right to facilitate in an marriage they disagree with. Anything otherwise is a direct violation of another's First Amendment right.

Just stop.

Incorrect.

Equal protection of the law concerns equal access to the law, where the states must afford residents equal access to all state laws, including marriage law; so the issue indeed concerns marriage and has everything to do with the 14th Amendment:

Wrong.

The State cannot enact a law which denies an individual equal protection under the law: Federal or State. It cannot force private individuals to facilitate in any activity which violate's his or her first amendment rights. That include marriage laws, or in this instance, gay marriage.

Your marriage rights does not trump another's individual right. It's that simple.

What needs to ‘just stop’ is the effort by you and others on the right to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, efforts that are completely devoid of a rational basis, motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.

What needs to stop are mischaracterizations’ you are placing upon others. No one is trying to deny same sex couples from equal protection. You are forcing others to facilitate in activity which violates their individual rights.

What also needs to stop are the interpretations of the constitution as you see fit. The document is perfectly easy to understand and was written so that a fourth grader could comprehend with no problems. There is really no excuse why you cannot comprehend it in the same fashion.

 

[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.

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.

If a majority was needed to enact the Bill of Rights, how can you claim that it is not a function of majority rule?? It only exists because the majority was for it.

 

[AmazonTania]

I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

Again, we can't have anything other than majority rule. Even the idea of repealing/changing the 17th amendment depends on a super-majority agreeing to it.

If the whim of the majority violates the rights of the individual then you can't have it.

Plain and simple.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Equal Protection means equal justice under the law. That has nothing to do with marriage and is not protected under the 14th amendment. A private institution (Church, Mosque, Chapel, or Temple) can deny the right to facilitate in an marriage they disagree with. Anything otherwise is a direct violation of another's First Amendment right.

Just stop.

Incorrect.

Equal protection of the law concerns equal access to the law, where the states must afford residents equal access to all state laws, including marriage law; so the issue indeed concerns marriage and has everything to do with the 14th Amendment:

Wrong.

The State cannot enact a law which denies an individual equal protection under the law: Federal or State. It cannot force private individuals to facilitate in any activity which violate's his or her first amendment rights. That include marriage laws, or in this instance, gay marriage.

What is that supposed to even mean? Equal protection applies where actions are sufficiently similar. Legally recognized opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage are sufficiently similar so as to afford same sex partners a legitimate claim of the same marriage rights as those of the opposite sex,

under the principle of equal protection.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

Again, we can't have anything other than majority rule. Even the idea of repealing/changing the 17th amendment depends on a super-majority agreeing to it.

If the whim of the majority violates the rights of the individual then you can't have it.

Plain and simple.

Can a sufficient majority take away rights, say, by constitutional amendment?

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

If a majority was needed to enact the Bill of Rights, how can you claim that it is not a function of majority rule?? It only exists because the majority was for it.

Minority rights were still protected, although the majority may have decided upon something. This is why the enacting of the Bill of Rights was considered Democracy, not Majority Rule.

Majority Rule was Prop 8 and Kelo vs. New London City.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.

.

Who is claiming that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If a majority was needed to enact the Bill of Rights, how can you claim that it is not a function of majority rule?? It only exists because the majority was for it.

Minority rights were still protected, although the majority may have decided upon something. This is why the enacting of the Bill of Rights was considered Democracy, not Majority Rule.

Majority Rule was Prop 8 and Kelo vs. New London City.

Minorities receive rights by permission of the majority, and majorities can revoke rights if they have the votes.

 

[AmazonTania]

Again, we can't have anything other than majority rule. Even the idea of repealing/changing the 17th amendment depends on a super-majority agreeing to it.

If the whim of the majority violates the rights of the individual then you can't have it.

Plain and simple.

Can a sufficient majority take away rights, say, by constitutional amendment?

Yes, it can, but that is distinction without a difference.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

Again, we can't have anything other than majority rule. Even the idea of repealing/changing the 17th amendment depends on a super-majority agreeing to it.

If the whim of the majority violates the rights of the individual then you can't have it.

Plain and simple.

Chicken and egg again. The individual got the rights legally protected only because the majority provided for that protection.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the whim of the majority violates the rights of the individual then you can't have it.

Plain and simple.

Can a sufficient majority take away rights, say, by constitutional amendment?

Yes, it can, but that is distinction without a difference.

No it's not because it proves that minority rights are only secured if the majority has so permitted them.

Example: a woman currently has the right to an abortion under our Constitution, which includes the case law which in this case is Roe v Wade.

A sufficient majority can take that right away by constitutional amendment, or even by an overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Republican Party in fact would like to amend the Constitution to take away that right if they could get the votes.

In that case majority rule would prevail and a minority right would disappear, despite the fact that some (not most conservatives of course) might call that tyranny of the majority.

 

[rightwinger]

I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

We do not have majority rule

We have a majority electing representatives

Elected Representatives act on the behalf of the consensus of the majority. That's Majority Rule.

Now you are learning..

Those representatives do not have to vote based on what he majority want. Hey are only elected based on what the majority want

Then we have te President and the courts to keep them in check

Works pretty well don't ya think?

 

[AmazonTania]

If a majority was needed to enact the Bill of Rights, how can you claim that it is not a function of majority rule?? It only exists because the majority was for it.

Minority rights were still protected, although the majority may have decided upon something. This is why the enacting of the Bill of Rights was considered Democracy, not Majority Rule.

Majority Rule was Prop 8 and Kelo vs. New London City.

Minorities receive rights by permission of the majority, and majorities can revoke rights if they have the votes.

That is a slippery slope. There are negative rights and positive rights, which are essentially referred to as liberties and entitlements. Anyone has the right to go to a car dealer and get a car. Let’s begin with what this doesn't mean:

It doesn't mean that a person has an obligation to get a car. It's up to the individual. No one should force anyone else to buy one, but also, no one should be forcing anyone else not to buy one. Secondly, it doesn't mean that the car salesman has any obligation to give you a car. You'll have to pay for it. Your right to get a car is not an obligation to get a car, nor is it warrant to be given one. It's different from having a right to an attorney if you cannot afford one.

Being granted 'rights' differs and depends on whether or not a right is respected by getting out of the way, or whether a right is respected by complying. If someone has to respect your rights by conflicting with another's right, that is a bad way of granting rights

 

[AmazonTania]

Can a sufficient majority take away rights, say, by constitutional amendment?

Yes, it can, but that is distinction without a difference.

No it's not because it proves that minority rights are only secured if the majority has so permitted them.

Example: a woman currently has the right to an abortion under our Constitution, which includes the case law which in this case is Roe v Wade.

A sufficient majority can take that right away by constitutional amendment, or even by an overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The Republican Party in fact would like to amend the Constitution to take away that right if they could get the votes.

In that case majority rule would prevail and a minority right would disappear, despite the fact that some (not most conservatives of course) might call that tyranny of the majority.

If you think minority rights are only protected because the majority permits them, then you have a very poor understanding of what rights are.

 

[rightwinger]

Minority rights were still protected, although the majority may have decided upon something. This is why the enacting of the Bill of Rights was considered Democracy, not Majority Rule.

Majority Rule was Prop 8 and Kelo vs. New London City.

Minorities receive rights by permission of the majority, and majorities can revoke rights if they have the votes.

That is a slippery slope. There are negative rights and positive rights, which are essentially referred to as liberties and entitlements. Anyone has the right to go to a car dealer and get a car. Let’s begin with what this doesn't mean:

It doesn't mean that a person has an obligation to get a car. It's up to the individual. No one should force anyone else to buy one, but also, no one should be forcing anyone else not to buy one. Secondly, it doesn't mean that the car salesman has any obligation to give you a car. You'll have to pay for it. Your right to get a car is not an obligation to get a car, nor is it warrant to be given one. It's different from having a right to an attorney if you cannot afford one.

One of the weakest analogies ever posted on this board

But thanks for tryng

 

[AmazonTania]

Again, we can't have anything other than majority rule. Even the idea of repealing/changing the 17th amendment depends on a super-majority agreeing to it.

If the whim of the majority violates the rights of the individual then you can't have it.

Plain and simple.

Chicken and egg again. The individual got the rights legally protected only because the majority provided for that protection.

It's not a case of chicken and egg. Everyone has individual rights. These are not rights anyone else is obligated to provide or must provide, but rights which are granted simply by the inaction of other people. In other words, you are born with these rights.

That's not debatable.