Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[The2ndAmendment]

It's interesting the kind of amendments to the Constitution conservatives support, while out of the other side of their mouths they're talking about rights:

1. an amendment to take away an individual's right to vote for his senators.

2. an amendment to take away a woman's right to an abortion.

3. an amendment to take away an individual's right to legally marry someone of the same sex.

I'm just curious, are there any amendments to the Constitution that conservatives support that would expand individual rights,

as opposed to taking them away?

Our Constitution was not built solely on individual rights. It was also built on states rights, a part which people like you obstinately refuse to acknowledge. It is a bizarre blind spot.

It is a simple fact the 17th amendment greatly eroded states rights. Yet you do not have a problem with that.

NYCarbineer doesn't recognize individual rights either, only collective government granted privileges.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Carby should not bandy about such terms as "tyranny," since he clearly doesn't understand their meaning.

He obviously doesn't know what a constitutional right is either.

In actuality, you are ALL wrong. There is no such thing as a "constitutional right."

The Constitution SECURES those rights that are pre-exist at birth, it does not create them. This is made clear by the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There was a time when the Ninth Amendment was the King of the Constitution, the ivory tower Marxists now have us believing that the Ninth Amendment is meaningless and unintelligible.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

We are a democracy. We are a government of the People, which is what a democracy is.

So now we've gone FULL CIRCLE with the Retard:

Article IV, Section 4, United States Constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.

How many posts ago did he make this exact same claim and admitted the existence of Article IV, Section 4? Does he have amnesia?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Carby should not bandy about such terms as "tyranny," since he clearly doesn't understand their meaning.

He obviously doesn't know what a constitutional right is either.

In actuality, you are ALL wrong. There is no such thing as a "constitutional right."

The Constitution SECURES those rights that are pre-exist at birth, it does not create them. This is made clear by the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There was a time when the Ninth Amendment was the King of the Constitution, the ivory tower Marxists now have us believing that the Ninth Amendment is meaningless and unintelligible.

Don't get too overly dramatic.

"Constitutional right" is understood by most of us (excluding the ignorant leftists, of course) as short hand for "Constitutionally GUARANTEED Rights." The Constitution itself does not grant rights. But it offers such protection as a binding covenant might afford us. If and to the extent it is honored by the people who perform governmental duties and service, that is.

On the other hand, some of the rights (like the right of suffrage) are not God-given rights. They exist only to the extent that we even HAVE a government where folks represent us or where issues are put to a vote. The right to vote IS a Constitutional right.

God didn't give us a "right" to a fair trial. God did not create or judicial system nor our notion of a trial by jury. But it is a right which the Constitution speaks of and which it is supposed to guarantee.

And we also understand that the Constitution itself is a piece of paper. It cannot protect my life nor can it protect my right to a trial or my right to vote, etc. It is the implementation of what it commands that gives me such protections.

This is why I object to the view of the Constitution espoused by guys like President Obama. He bemoans the fact that it does not provide for redistributive "justice." Let's face it. The man may have done some "teaching" (God help his "students") on Constitutional law, but that does not mean that he truly understands it. He clearly does not much care for it. And it is damaging to leave it to folks like him to "uphold" it.

No wonder so many lolberals like him.

 

[P@triot]

Kudos to G5000 for starting this thread.

(Can't believe I just wrote that....)

Like you, I rarely agree with g5000. And like you, I think he started a good thread here. Partly because of the topic, and partly because it taught me a lot about why 75% of the time I think g5000 needs therapy.

With the exception of Ron Paul, there is no bigger unhinged loon than Mark Levin. As pretty much everyone on this board knows, I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. Levin is not a conservative - he is a lunatic and a quasi-anarchist. He's actually gone on rants that Ron Paul is a "fake Republican". Dude, when Ron fucking Paul isn't far enough off the political scale to the right for you, you've got serious fucking issues.

When you go beyond the Constitution to the right, you are every bit as disturbed and dangerous as progressives who go beyond the Constitution to the left. I can handle less than 3 minutes off Levin before I have to turn the channel - and I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who listens to him.

Dude, Paul and Levin are not to the right of the Constitution; THERE IS NO RIGHT BEYOND THE CONSTITUTION! IF it is unconstitutional, that is all it is; unfuckingconstitutional.

This is one of the more absurd statements I have encountered. You can't be right of the Constitution?!?

If you believe you are sovereign unto yourself (Sovereign Citizen) - you are right of the Constitution. If you believe in no government and no laws (Anarchist) - you are right of the Constitution.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Kudos to G5000 for starting this thread.

(Can't believe I just wrote that....)

Like you, I rarely agree with g5000. And like you, I think he started a good thread here. Partly because of the topic, and partly because it taught me a lot about why 75% of the time I think g5000 needs therapy.

With the exception of Ron Paul, there is no bigger unhinged loon than Mark Levin. As pretty much everyone on this board knows, I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. Levin is not a conservative - he is a lunatic and a quasi-anarchist. He's actually gone on rants that Ron Paul is a "fake Republican". Dude, when Ron fucking Paul isn't far enough off the political scale to the right for you, you've got serious fucking issues.

When you go beyond the Constitution to the right, you are every bit as disturbed and dangerous as progressives who go beyond the Constitution to the left. I can handle less than 3 minutes off Levin before I have to turn the channel - and I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who listens to him.

Don't often disagree so much with Rotty. But when it comes to Mark Levin, he couldn't be more wrong.

Levin is a PURE conservative. He is not a lunatic at all.

His objections to Ron Paul go to his objections with libertarian political philosophy and a few finer points about the security of the nation.

But Mark is so clear-eyed and level-headed in his focused analysis that he almost seems like he's "too" narrow. He is actually quite brilliant.

 

[The T]

Like you, I rarely agree with g5000. And like you, I think he started a good thread here. Partly because of the topic, and partly because it taught me a lot about why 75% of the time I think g5000 needs therapy.

With the exception of Ron Paul, there is no bigger unhinged loon than Mark Levin. As pretty much everyone on this board knows, I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. Levin is not a conservative - he is a lunatic and a quasi-anarchist. He's actually gone on rants that Ron Paul is a "fake Republican". Dude, when Ron fucking Paul isn't far enough off the political scale to the right for you, you've got serious fucking issues.

When you go beyond the Constitution to the right, you are every bit as disturbed and dangerous as progressives who go beyond the Constitution to the left. I can handle less than 3 minutes off Levin before I have to turn the channel - and I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who listens to him.

Dude, Paul and Levin are not to the right of the Constitution; THERE IS NO RIGHT BEYOND THE CONSTITUTION! IF it is unconstitutional, that is all it is; unfuckingconstitutional.

This is one of the more absurd statements I have encountered. You can't be right of the Constitution?!?

If you believe you are sovereign unto yourself (Sovereign Citizen) - you are right of the Constitution. If you believe in no government and no laws (Anarchist) - you are right of the Constitution.

I'll take "what is the Rule of law Constitutional Construct", for $1,000 Alex...

 

[eagle1462010]

It's interesting the kind of amendments to the Constitution conservatives support, while out of the other side of their mouths they're talking about rights:

1. an amendment to take away an individual's right to vote for his senators.

2. an amendment to take away a woman's right to an abortion.

3. an amendment to take away an individual's right to legally marry someone of the same sex.

I'm just curious, are there any amendments to the Constitution that conservatives support that would expand individual rights,

as opposed to taking them away?

Our Constitution was not built solely on individual rights. It was also built on states rights, a part which people like you obstinately refuse to acknowledge. It is a bizarre blind spot.

It is a simple fact the 17th amendment greatly eroded states rights. Yet you do not have a problem with that.

You seem to think that states' rights are supposed to exist without the will of the People within the various states.

That is retarded.

Which is a complete and utter lie. The State Legislatures are elected by the people. The Reps are elected by the people.

The only safe guard missing is the Senator, which the Founders clearly put a leash on. They realized that they had more power than the reps as there was only 2 from each State, which means if corrupted they had power as a result. Thus they made them selected BY ELECTED STATE LEGISLATURES. Thus giving the State Gov'ts a DIRECT INPUT INT THE FED.

They did this for a system of Checks and Balances WHERE EVERYONE HAD A SAY......

Your lie is that they were wrong and the REMOVED THE CHECK.

During the time the 17th was passed. They passed Prohibition which was STUPID. Later repealed. They passed the Federal Reserve Act which gave the currency back to the banks. This is an area were libs go bat shit crazy over, and an area I agree on.

Under this same so called Great Era under Wilson, he also passed Sedition acts and shut down radio and papers who dared to get out of line. Read about that chit.

If this was a Great Era, why the hell did it turn everything to chit over time? You libs don't care about the Constitution. It has been abused over time to a point that much of it has virtually disappeared. The Founders warned us of the Danger of this, and they were absolutely right.

We want to return to the basics of the constitution to fix the BS going on now. We have an out of control Gov't with Life Long politicians who are bought and sold by Special Interests. One area can be solved by simply repealing the mistake of the 17th, and give the states back their voice.

 

[eagle1462010]

The basic assumption in repealing the 17th amendment is that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens which is bizarre at best for a nation that expounds democracy throughout the world.

They are elected officials of the state. They are voted on LOCALLY. Better chance of knowing your local candidates than one from across the state. Secondly, they are more familiar with the consequences to the state, a lot of times economically, as it is their job to protect the state and it's citizens. Thus they simply are GENERALLY MORE INFORMED THAN THE AVERAGE PUBLIC.

While that doesn't state a Senator isn't aware of the same, the single is more likely to be corrupted than the many aka the state's legislature.

People simply don't fully understand that the Founders were some very smart people, and they did these things to try and stop corruption and tyranny throughout their decisions.

The 17th is a mistake.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Like you, I rarely agree with g5000. And like you, I think he started a good thread here. Partly because of the topic, and partly because it taught me a lot about why 75% of the time I think g5000 needs therapy.

With the exception of Ron Paul, there is no bigger unhinged loon than Mark Levin. As pretty much everyone on this board knows, I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. Levin is not a conservative - he is a lunatic and a quasi-anarchist. He's actually gone on rants that Ron Paul is a "fake Republican". Dude, when Ron fucking Paul isn't far enough off the political scale to the right for you, you've got serious fucking issues.

When you go beyond the Constitution to the right, you are every bit as disturbed and dangerous as progressives who go beyond the Constitution to the left. I can handle less than 3 minutes off Levin before I have to turn the channel - and I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who listens to him.

Dude, Paul and Levin are not to the right of the Constitution; THERE IS NO RIGHT BEYOND THE CONSTITUTION! IF it is unconstitutional, that is all it is; unfuckingconstitutional.

This is one of the more absurd statements I have encountered. You can't be right of the Constitution?!?

If you believe you are sovereign unto yourself (Sovereign Citizen) - you are right of the Constitution. If you believe in no government and no laws (Anarchist) - you are right of the Constitution.

OK, lemme essplain this to you:

1. When one speaks of this conventional right-left spectrum, the right represents established traditional forms of government, while the left represents new innovation to government that is supposed to be for the betterment of society, i.e. progressive ideologies of various sorts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_spectrum

When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly composed of entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered. When the succeeding National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following the coup d'état of June 2, 1793, and the arrest of the Girondins, the right side of the assembly was deserted, and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. However following the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794 the members of the far left were excluded and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would "break up the party groups."[11]

However following the Restoration in 1814-1815 political clubs were again formed. The majority ultraroyalists chose to sit on the right. The "constitutionals" sat in the centre while independents sat on the left. The terms extreme right and extreme left, as well as centre-right and centre-left, came to be used to describe the nuances of ideology of different sections of the assembly.[12]

2. In the United States the Constitution depicts the very first permutation of our current government, and a US conservative is a person who wants to defend that form of government.

3. So in the US political system one CANNOT be to the right of the Constitution since it DEFINES what the right is.

Your fucking welcome, Einstein.

BTW, anarchists are about as far to the LEFT as one can get since they accept NO form of government at all, which is about as Jacobin radical as it can possibly be.

 

[Flopper]

The basic assumption in repealing the 17th amendment is that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens which is bizarre at best for a nation that expounds democracy throughout the world.

Not at all bizarre since we have now got a huge percentage of the public that falls into the category of 'Obama phone, low info' voters. These cretins are easily persuaded by even the most simplistic advertising if seen frequently enough.

Hell, the simpler the better it works on them.

Which is why this was never and shall never be a democracy.

Why is the US not a true democracy

Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers wouldn't empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine — a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes, maybe less. As your post clearly indicates, the drive to repeal the 17th amendment is not about the way to best representation the people, rather it's about Republicans fight to capture the Senate. If Democrats controlled a majority of state legislatures, Republicans would certainly reverse their position.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers wouldn't empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine — a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes, maybe less.

It seems that "voters" even tolerate NSA and NDAA Mega-Tyranny, so that prediction is rather shallow.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The basic assumption in repealing the 17th amendment is that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens which is bizarre at best for a nation that expounds democracy throughout the world.

Not at all bizarre since we have now got a huge percentage of the public that falls into the category of 'Obama phone, low info' voters. These cretins are easily persuaded by even the most simplistic advertising if seen frequently enough.

Hell, the simpler the better it works on them.

Which is why this was never and shall never be a democracy.

Why is the US not a true democracy

Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers wouldn't empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine — a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes, maybe less.

Resurrect? Are you serious?

Apparently you are no student of today political system where the old machines have just about put a lock on winning enough elections to keep a thug in power from here on out.

 

[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 terrorism on you.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

The IRS = Economic Terrorism

Although, they've actually evolved into a Political Terrorist agency too.

 

[The T]

Not at all bizarre since we have now got a huge percentage of the public that falls into the category of 'Obama phone, low info' voters. These cretins are easily persuaded by even the most simplistic advertising if seen frequently enough.

Hell, the simpler the better it works on them.

Which is why this was never and shall never be a democracy.

Why is the US not a true democracy

Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers wouldn't empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine — a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes, maybe less.

Resurrect? Are you serious?

Apparently you are no student of today political system where the old machines have just about put a lock on winning enough elections to keep a thug in power from here on out.

And ALL the while ignoring the Constitution, much lees the people that put them there.

WE know what last resort is...HOPE it never comes to it.

 

[The T]

Levin's premise is that the FEDERAL GUBMINT is out of control...It's all around us.

WE live in a soft tyranny.

LEVIN is correct.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Unrelated post. If you want to discuss your class warfare agenda, start a thread on that subject.
Stay on point.

 

[RKMBrown]

Kudos to G5000 for starting this thread.

(Can't believe I just wrote that....)

Like you, I rarely agree with g5000. And like you, I think he started a good thread here. Partly because of the topic, and partly because it taught me a lot about why 75% of the time I think g5000 needs therapy.

With the exception of Ron Paul, there is no bigger unhinged loon than Mark Levin. As pretty much everyone on this board knows, I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. Levin is not a conservative - he is a lunatic and a quasi-anarchist. He's actually gone on rants that Ron Paul is a "fake Republican". Dude, when Ron fucking Paul isn't far enough off the political scale to the right for you, you've got serious fucking issues.

When you go beyond the Constitution to the right, you are every bit as disturbed and dangerous as progressives who go beyond the Constitution to the left. I can handle less than 3 minutes off Levin before I have to turn the channel - and I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who listens to him.

Don't often disagree so much with Rotty. But when it comes to Mark Levin, he couldn't be more wrong.

Levin is a PURE conservative. He is not a lunatic at all.

His objections to Ron Paul go to his objections with libertarian political philosophy and a few finer points about the security of the nation.

But Mark is so clear-eyed and level-headed in his focused analysis that he almost seems like he's "too" narrow. He is actually quite brilliant.

Levin may be brilliant, but he's not the genius he purports himself to be. He's also a warhawk and a jerk.

 

[RKMBrown]

Levin's premise is that the FEDERAL GUBMINT is out of control...It's all around us.

WE live in a soft tyranny.

LEVIN is correct.

Levin doesn't want a smaller government he wants to redirect the funds to the DHS for the police state, and more wars, and the border fences, and the war on drugs, and and and cause he can't get enough of tyranny that kills people and limits everyone's liberty in those ways.