Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[JimBowie1958]

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.

"Why trade one tyrant a thousand miles a way for a thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Democracy was never what the Founding Fathers had in mind, in fact they despised the tyranny of the majority, of the unwashed masses.

The libtards like democracy because they manipulate it to their own advantage using their libtard allies in the press and academia to bamboozle the young and foolish.

Senators elected by state congresses would put a stop to that and the libtards hate it for that reason.

And notice how many argue that the sequence of time passage is evidence of the rightness and appropriateness of these changes when change in and of itself proves absolutely nothing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

The majority can be wrong, but only the majority has the right to be wrong. Under this insulting system, they pay for the mistakes of a tiny minority of well-connected politicians, who only suffer the slight harm of not getting re-elected.

There is no such thing as a tyranny of the majority, which is a contradiction. How can people tyrannize over themselves? Who judges that the will of the people against a minority is irrational and tyrannical? If it is, it is the duty of the minority to persuade the majority to a different opinion, not have it forced upon them and re-inforced when it is proven by high crime or whatever we are forced to stomach that the majority had been right all along. Giving authority to pre-owned politicians is like an orphan getting to choose his parents. Anyone with such contempt for the people to call them a mob or dependent children is a traitor and should be punished appropriately. If you consider to be an inferior herd, your swollen head is only fit for a guillotine.

What a bunch of anarchist crapola.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Anyone believes our country is a democracy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Wow...
Please answer this question. What is the function of the federal and Supreme Courts?

 

[P@triot]

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

Says the idiot who supports voter fraud....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

No right is given by permission, that would be called a Privilege.

You are born with your rights, from the Creator.

In fact, all rights are retained and reserved to the People, as per the Ninth Amendment. Reading from our [Aegis of Liberty] letter to the Supreme Court:

I fear that there is a dangerous rhetoric in this nation; coming from both the left and the right, that the Government manufactures rights, and thus the Government also has the ability to deny or disparage the rights that it claims to create. These philosophies, which are rooted in Statism, are repugnant to the libertarian (Classical Liberal) ideology upon which our Constitution was founded.

I consider these times to be perilous, when ordinary citizens like myself, are all talking privately among each other and agreeing with one another, regardless of party, that our entire Bill of Rights is under siege; while the extremists who lead both parties consolidate and centralize more power to the Federal Government.

It may seem strange that I believe each amendment in the Bill of Rights to be under siege, but I do in fact believe each and every Amendment is being violated, including the Third and Ninth Amendments. I also find it disturbing that such tyranny can be imposed upon the citizens so regularly, that they accept it as common practice; however, I will save this concern for later.

....

The first function of the Ninth Amendment is to serve as an instructional and educational amendment, in order to inform the citizens of the United States that our rights, especially those that are enumerated, are bestowed upon us at birth — not by government; that government can only work oppression and abuse — that government is both vice and punisher — that the government can only enforce its rule via the denial or disparagement of our rights; that the government at its very best is but a necessary evil.

This particular function has no meaning in a judicial process, it simply serves as a reminder to all citizens that any politician that preaches or espouses the idea of Government created rights (privileges), or other Statist philosophies, is a politician who is rotten to the core.

This makes YOU ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

III. Although the Constitution allows judicial review via Jury Nullification or through a decision made by a judge (or judges), the practice of judicial review is restrained by the combination of Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which come together to define the practice of Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:



1. Limits the rights of citizens.

2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.

3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.

4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.

5. Serves to legislate Common Law (the combination of legislative and judicial powers)



The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be curtailed, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power over the citizens, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.



IV. The final function is to establish under which circumstances that Judicial Review can act as positive force, and what exactly are the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Judicial Review process, we will call this positive form of Judicial Review to be Judicial Activism.



Judicial Activism is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Is not an act of Judicial Tyranny.

2. Expands the rights of citizens without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of either the State or Federal governments.

3. Expands the rights of States, without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

4. Does not serve to legislate Common Law.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We expect utter simpleton twits like TderpM to steadfastly 9and inaccurately) maintain that America is a "democracy."

It is a bit of surprise to see that Carby is on the same ignorant page with the simpleton asshat TderpM.

America is not a "democracy." The most that can accurately be said along such lines is that America is a Constitutional Republic which is a very precisely modified form of government with roots in the principles of democracy.

TderpM will never get it. It appears that in her studious ignorance, she is not going to be alone in the dark. Carby is right there with her.

What he doesn't "get" about America and the Constitution and what the Constitution actually says and means is simply staggering.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We expect utter simpleton twits like TderpM to steadfastly 9and inaccurately) maintain that America is a "democracy."

It is a bit of surprise to see that Carby is on the same ignorant page with the simpleton asshat TderpM.

America is not a "democracy." The most that can accurately be said along such lines is that America is a Constitutional Republic which is a very precisely modified form of government with roots in the principles of democracy.

TderpM will never get it. It appears that in her studious ignorance, she is not going to be alone in the dark. Carby is right there with her.

What he doesn't "get" about America and the Constitution and what the Constitution actually says and means is simply staggering.

The direct election of Senators is part of the Constitution you ignorant fuck.

Jeezus, you retreads are dumber than you were in your original costumes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

No right is given by permission, that would be called a Privilege.

You are born with your rights, from the Creator.

In fact, all rights are retained and reserved to the People, as per the Ninth Amendment. Reading from our [Aegis of Liberty] letter to the Supreme Court:

I fear that there is a dangerous rhetoric in this nation; coming from both the left and the right, that the Government manufactures rights, and thus the Government also has the ability to deny or disparage the rights that it claims to create. These philosophies, which are rooted in Statism, are repugnant to the libertarian (Classical Liberal) ideology upon which our Constitution was founded.

I consider these times to be perilous, when ordinary citizens like myself, are all talking privately among each other and agreeing with one another, regardless of party, that our entire Bill of Rights is under siege; while the extremists who lead both parties consolidate and centralize more power to the Federal Government.

It may seem strange that I believe each amendment in the Bill of Rights to be under siege, but I do in fact believe each and every Amendment is being violated, including the Third and Ninth Amendments. I also find it disturbing that such tyranny can be imposed upon the citizens so regularly, that they accept it as common practice; however, I will save this concern for later.

....

The first function of the Ninth Amendment is to serve as an instructional and educational amendment, in order to inform the citizens of the United States that our rights, especially those that are enumerated, are bestowed upon us at birth — not by government; that government can only work oppression and abuse — that government is both vice and punisher — that the government can only enforce its rule via the denial or disparagement of our rights; that the government at its very best is but a necessary evil.

This particular function has no meaning in a judicial process, it simply serves as a reminder to all citizens that any politician that preaches or espouses the idea of Government created rights (privileges), or other Statist philosophies, is a politician who is rotten to the core.

This makes YOU ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

III. Although the Constitution allows judicial review via Jury Nullification or through a decision made by a judge (or judges), the practice of judicial review is restrained by the combination of Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which come together to define the practice of Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:



1. Limits the rights of citizens.

2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.

3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.

4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.

5. Serves to legislate Common Law (the combination of legislative and judicial powers)



The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be curtailed, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power over the citizens, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.



IV. The final function is to establish under which circumstances that Judicial Review can act as positive force, and what exactly are the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Judicial Review process, we will call this positive form of Judicial Review to be Judicial Activism.



Judicial Activism is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Is not an act of Judicial Tyranny.

2. Expands the rights of citizens without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of either the State or Federal governments.

3. Expands the rights of States, without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

4. Does not serve to legislate Common Law.

The Ninth Amendment is in the Constitution because the Majority agreed to put it there.

 

[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.

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.

You can't have a functional government without majority rule. You could not do something as simple as pass a law in a system where the majority vote doesn't win passage.

This whole tyranny of the majority nonsense is just the conservatives' way of whining about the fact that they don't have enough votes to impose their crackpot agenda on the country.

I don't want a tyranny of the minority thwarting the will of the People at every opportunity.

Conservatives want that because conservatives know that progress requires change, conservatives don't want progress, and minority tyranny is the best roadblock to change.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

No right is given by permission, that would be called a Privilege.

You are born with your rights, from the Creator.

In fact, all rights are retained and reserved to the People, as per the Ninth Amendment. Reading from our [Aegis of Liberty] letter to the Supreme Court:



....



This makes YOU ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

III. Although the Constitution allows judicial review via Jury Nullification or through a decision made by a judge (or judges), the practice of judicial review is restrained by the combination of Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which come together to define the practice of Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:



1. Limits the rights of citizens.

2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.

3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.

4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.

5. Serves to legislate Common Law (the combination of legislative and judicial powers)



The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be curtailed, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power over the citizens, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.



IV. The final function is to establish under which circumstances that Judicial Review can act as positive force, and what exactly are the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Judicial Review process, we will call this positive form of Judicial Review to be Judicial Activism.



Judicial Activism is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Is not an act of Judicial Tyranny.

2. Expands the rights of citizens without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of either the State or Federal governments.

3. Expands the rights of States, without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

4. Does not serve to legislate Common Law.

The Ninth Amendment is in the Constitution because the Majority agreed to put it there.

Carby keeps saying that ^ trite blather as though it is somehow meaningful or illuminating. It isn't.

Of course the majority agreed to it.

By that same logic, the majority agreed to Prohibition, too. Yet, it no longer exists.

Still, a simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a man to speak ill of the GOP. A simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a woman to speak ill of the Democrat Parody, either.

Why is it that a majority cannot simply write such a law?

Gee. That's a real poser.

Oh wait. No it isn't. Such laws cannot be validly written by the majority BECAUSE we do not live in a simple or simple minded "democracy." There are Constitutional prohibitions in place that negate the power of a majority to simply enact such laws.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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

The majority can be wrong, but only the majority has the right to be wrong.

What?



These politicians pay by losing their jobs.



The majority are tyrannical towards others who are not composed of the majority. This is called 'the minority.'

The examples should really be simple without someone having to explain them to you.

Who judges that the will of the people against a minority is irrational and tyrannical?

The individuals who lose their individual liberties as a result. If you really need an example, all you have to do is ask.

If it is, it is the duty of the minority to persuade the majority to a different opinion, not have it forced upon them and re-inforced when it is proven by high crime or whatever we are forced to stomach that the majority had been right all along. Giving authority to pre-owned politicians is like an orphan getting to choose his parents. Anyone with such contempt for the people to call them a mob or dependent children is a traitor and should be punished appropriately. If you consider to be an inferior herd, your swollen head is only fit for a guillotine.

Listen. I'll try to explain this to you in the best way that I can.
That's not the same thing as figuring out what is right.

Don't insult me with your illusion of superiority. Typical of your inferior IQ is the reasoning that if the majority isn't always right, it must be always wrong. Guess what, when the fake representatives are wrong, it is always the law that we must obey them. I'd rather have to obey the majority them a smaller group, it's that simple. You just want to inflate your pathetic ego by imagining yourself to be wise or a follower of the wise while the majority of people are beneath your contempt. Swollen heads get chopped off. Besides, you're nothing. You're just a bootlicking yes man, a house slave who wants the rest of us to obey your Masters' minority will.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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.

No it doesn't. Only the legislators, about the tiniest minority imaginable (outside the SCROTUS), can vote on amendments. Will this clique vote against something that gives them more power? Our only power is when they go to extremes. People in other dictatorships also have that power, which is why Stalinists spend so much effort on propaganda rather than just telling people to obey or die.

This nonsense that we voted for the legislators so we are the ones voting whether they can appoint our senators is typical of how representation doesn't represent. Electing is not voting; it is giving up your natural right to vote on issues to a pre-owned politician chosen by you only as a lesser evil.

Representativism is like having a dozen people whisper a story in one another's ears and passing it down. By the time it gets to the last listener, the story has completely changed: "Obama's father was born in Kenya" winds up, "Obama, his father, and his mother were all born in Kenya."

 

[PrometheusBound]

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.

Begging the questions by assuming that the people will be more capricious than the representatives you elevate to superior status. If you weren't blinded by your worship of authority, you would question the motivation of self-anointed dogooders going against the will of the "immoral majority." There is no such thing as doing good for bad people. Your idols are sheltered and ignorant snobs whose only motivation is their Class Supremacy hatred of the majority, no matter what their well-financed public image is of being selfless idealists. Their weak opponents are all really just loyal classmates in the Snob Mob. They praise with faint damnation when they claim that their false opposition is "unrealistically idealistic." This only contributes to the illusion that these conceited brats have a conscience.

How many times have we found out that their "facts and evidence" are made up or based on selective data? Our real opinion, which we are intimidated from bringing to consciousness, is that politicians are lying incompetents, which proves that deep down inside we know that our senile form of government is tyranny.

 

[freedombecki]

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

Election 2000, Gore tried to steal Florida away from Bush 3 times before the Florida Secretary of State said "enough!"

And all 3 times, Bush won. But oh, no, you liberals to this day keep the lie alive how Bush and conservatives took away the vote.

We didn't do it but it pissed off liberals to be told no after hitting the wall 3 times.

Conservatives do hate something though; we hate to see Lilliputian liberals slamming their head against the wall over and over and over.

It's so unnecessary.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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.

Prove that the majority's will is a "whim." Prove that what the majority thinks is a threat to them by a minority is just their paranoiac imagination. Again you want the benefit to a few to have greater value than the benefit to the many. Do the math.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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.

You beat me to the punch. It is typical of the Libretardians to claim something means something else, like this nonsense that the House represents democracy while the Senate represents a republic, then take that lie and run with it.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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.

Right, except that we are not revoking rights, only claims about rights. I can claim that if you people don't answer me, you are revoking my right to participate in this debate! You mob rule, you!

 

[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

Election 2000, Gore tried to steal Florida away from Bush 3 times before the Florida Secretary of State said "enough!"

And all 3 times, Bush won. But oh, no, you liberals to this day keep the lie alive how Bush and conservatives took away the vote.

We didn't do it but it pissed off liberals to be told no after hitting the wall 3 times.

Conservatives do hate something though; we hate to see Lilliputian liberals slamming their head against the wall over and over and over.

It's so unnecessary.

Which party was blocking a recount?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Aww, come on. Even dogs need to hear something several times to learn it, and these are LIBERALS we're talking to.