Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[AmazonTania]

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

It's a weak analogy if you've never taken philosophy. I've never pegged you for a thinker.

 

[rightwinger]

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

It's a weak analogy if you've never taken philosophy. I've never pegged you for a thinker.

Me? I work in a sewer

But can still identify a weak analogy when I see one

I give it a D. It would have been an F but I bumped you up a grade for effort

 

[AmazonTania]

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?

Wasn't able understand what those ill constructed sentences meant, but representatives do have a vote based on what the majority want. Plenty of bills are introduced through consensus of the people.

 

[AmazonTania]

One of the weakest analogies ever posted on this board

But thanks for tryng

It's a weak analogy if you've never taken philosophy. I've never pegged you for a thinker.

Me? I work in a sewer

But can still identify a weak analogy when I see one

I give it a D. It would have been an F but I bumped you up a grade for effort

You wouldn't know an analogy from a hole in the ground. Pardon the pun... And my point still remains un-refuted so your opinions are essentially meaningless.

Whenever you are willing to use your brain, you may address the point in question.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Wasn't able understand what those ill constructed sentences meant, but representatives do have a vote based on what the majority want. Plenty of bills are introduced through consensus of the people.

Almost no bills are passed based on what the people want. An elected representative presents a political position when campaigning. A voter has a broad view of how that representative will vote

In our current system, that vote is based more on party loyalties than any consensus of the public

 

[rightwinger]

It's a weak analogy if you've never taken philosophy. I've never pegged you for a thinker.

Me? I work in a sewer

But can still identify a weak analogy when I see one

I give it a D. It would have been an F but I bumped you up a grade for effort

You wouldn't know an analogy from a hole in the ground. Pardon the pun... And my point still remains un-refuted so your opinions are essentially meaningless.

Whenever you are willing to use your brain, you may address the point in question.

You have a point? Your posts don't indicate it

 

[AmazonTania]

Me? I work in a sewer

But can still identify a weak analogy when I see one

I give it a D. It would have been an F but I bumped you up a grade for effort

You wouldn't know an analogy from a hole in the ground. Pardon the pun... And my point still remains un-refuted so your opinions are essentially meaningless.

Whenever you are willing to use your brain, you may address the point in question.

You have a point? Your posts don't indicate it

It certainly does. It's really not my fault you don't understand philosophy.

 

[AmazonTania]

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?

Wasn't able understand what those ill constructed sentences meant, but representatives do have a vote based on what the majority want. Plenty of bills are introduced through consensus of the people.

Almost no bills are passed based on what the people want.

Good. And that is how it should stay. Laws were not designed to be enacted based on mere consensus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

people in general we just see as NOT REQUIRING EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD TO BE ABOUT THEM INDIVIDUALLY.

Each state is like a labor union The purpose of a state's Senators is to act as union representatives for their state COLLECTIVELY, rather than as representatives of the people in the state individually. Since the people on a more individual basis already HAVE representation in the person of their Representatives to the House, .

You've gobbled too much plutocratic popcorn. It's made you fart all over the message board. The rich you worship for their preppy republic have nothing but contempt for you, so as Lenin, a typical rich kid no matter what his politics, said, you are a useful idiot.

"Ohmigod! Points I can't answer! Quick, spew some coffeehouse buzzwords and throw out some personal attacks, and maybe no one will notice that I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY!"

Dismissed, twerp. Back to the frat house with you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wasn't able understand what those ill constructed sentences meant, but representatives do have a vote based on what the majority want. Plenty of bills are introduced through consensus of the people.

Almost no bills are passed based on what the people want.

Good. And that is how it should stay. Laws were not designed to be enacted based on mere consensus.

Says who? Now non-representative representatives are a good thing?

Is there nothing about democratic government you find acceptable?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's a substanceless disagreement. I hope you didn't intend that as a refutation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For those who care about history, by 1913 over half the states had already mandated that their legislatures appoint Senators in accordance with the voters' choice.

This issue is an idle fantasy in the Devil's playground of the rightwing mind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I really wish people would read my posts at least 1/10th as carefully as i try to compose them. Do you see the words 'legally protected' in my last post?

Do you suppose I put those words there for a reason? Yes, the reason was my furtive hope that someone wouldn't waste time making the post you did in reply.

Alas, an exercise in futility.

 

[rightwinger]

For those who care about history, by 1913 over half the states had already mandated that their legislatures appoint Senators in accordance with the voters' choice.

This issue is an idle fantasy in the Devil's playground of the rightwing mind.

Anything to take away the vote

A conservatives biggest enemy

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

That's a substanceless disagreement. I hope you didn't intend that as a refutation.

I already refuted this nonsense with a response in another post. No point in saying the same thing twice

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

I really wish people would read my posts at least 1/10th as carefully as i try to compose them. Do you see the words 'legally protected' in my last post?

Do you suppose I put those words there for a reason? Yes, the reason was my furtive hope that someone wouldn't waste time making the post you did in reply.

Alas, an exercise in futility.

It's really irrelevant how you have decided to phrase your post. The rights of the individual are not protected by the majority. Individuals have these rights already, and are not given by the collective. Anyone can enjoy these rights, and they can do it with or without collusion by the majority.

The majority are not the ones who provide protection of these rights. Protection is not required.

 

[OnePercenter]

Keep in mind that the one percenters with something to sell are keeping you busy while the guys they work for are committing economic terriorism on you.

 

[RKMBrown]

For those who care about history, by 1913 over half the states had already mandated that their legislatures appoint Senators in accordance with the voters' choice.

This issue is an idle fantasy in the Devil's playground of the rightwing mind.

Anything to take away the vote

A conservatives biggest enemy

Everyone's biggest enemy is a majority that has set it's sights on his liberty. Funny how libtards are all about using the majority vote as a weapon to enslave people, all the while decrying for the government to disarm everyone, all the while claiming this is the way to make us all safer.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And With as well Liberals masquerading as defenders of the Republic with an R by their name...forthwith shall be known as Repubicans with the likes of Boehner, McLame, Lindsay Grahamnesty, to name a couple...leading the parade.

They re sickening...

The old guard GOP establishment reminds me the the 900 year old Knight charged with Guarding the Holy Grail in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
The Knight would fiercely guard the Grail and fend off any would be thief or treasure hunter. He's so old however, he can barely lift his sword. The problem is and read closely, no one has been able to replace the old Knight.
So goes the way of politics here. no one has been able to replace the old guard GOP. A group of people who's only purpose is get re-elected.

The new guard GOP is more frightening than the old guard

Yeah..To you libs.
The cold hard fact is the majority of the country has had it 'up to here' with failed liberal policies.
The economy is at a standstill. Obamacare,as predicted, is killing the full time job status.
Government is too large, too expensive and now with NSA spying on just about everyone, too intrusive.

 

[thereisnospoon]

For those who care about history, by 1913 over half the states had already mandated that their legislatures appoint Senators in accordance with the voters' choice.

This issue is an idle fantasy in the Devil's playground of the rightwing mind.

Anything to take away the vote

A conservatives biggest enemy

Stop whining.