Democracy and Majority Rule

[dblack]

Bareass still bellyaching about the fact that the majority of Americans don't see things the way that he does.

Did you read the article? That's not what this is about. The concern is that so many Americans don't understand the purpose, and the limitations, of democracy in our government.

Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a measure is a good idea or a bad idea should determine its passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt.

Did you read the Constitution’s case law?

Obviously the article’s author did not.

Chief Justice Marshall also reaffirmed ...

You don't have to remind me that the status quo interpretation of the Constitution supports broad powers, enumerated or not. Sadly, "Today's Americans" includes a woefully misguided judicial branch. They, and our acceptance of their 'case law', is the core of the problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are tossing biscuits to beretta and bripat as they perform their tricks.

Love watching beretta, who fail the OP, and bripat moroning around. Morons just being morons.

Bripat is here to make beretta look smart. Bripat gets a biscuit every time he does.

And you're here toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......that's right........... troll around, divert a few threads, throw out a few straw man arguments, dangling a few red herrings and otherwise deflect, evade and personally attack. All....while never contributing a thing.

 

[beretta304]

We are tossing biscuits to beretta and bripat as they perform their tricks.

Bripat is here to make beretta look smart. Bripat gets a biscuit every time he does.

And you're here toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......that's right........... troll around, divert a few threads, throw out a few straw man arguments, dangling a few red herrings and otherwise deflect, evade and personally attack. All....while never contributing a thing.

You do a lot of talking about "we" yet no one seems to reply to you except like-minded ilk and trolls. You have quite the following.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Have another biscuit.

 

[beretta304]

Have another biscuit.

Have no more replies. 146 replies is hardly a failed thread, Bonzo.


Ignore List:


JakeStarkey

 

[JakeStarkey]

How does one reply to a monkey who scampers around begging for biscuits?

Your OP was fail from the start.

The next to you assert something, give solid evidence, and make sure if you are taking about democracy and the Founders, for heaven's sake, include Jefferson.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can anyone explain what Williams' point was?

 

[beretta304]

Can anyone explain what Williams' point was?

See you still don't get it. The more you ask, the more no one will reply to you. I certainly wouldn't reply because of your attitude. But that's just me. People know you and how you operate. You like to pretend to want to "discuss" an issue but all you want is something...anything to launch your ad hominem barage over.

You're a self -appointed, know-it-all expert on everything but in reality you know nothing about anything much like Jake which is likely why you both get along so well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have known Dr. Williams since the early 1990s when he was a department head at his university.

He was as silly then as he is now. Imagine that John C. Calhoun was his hero! Then he started writing columns and pandered like crazy to the silly extremist right. Loony.

 

[DiamondDave]

Bareass still bellyaching about the fact that the majority of Americans don't see things the way that he does.

Did you read the article? That's not what this is about. The concern is that so many Americans don't understand the purpose, and the limitations, of democracy in our government.

Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a measure is a good idea or a bad idea should determine its passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt.

Did you read the Constitution’s case law?

Obviously the article’s author did not.

Chief Justice Marshall also reaffirmed the settled fact that the Constitution has always afforded Congress powers both enumerated and implied. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

“But that’s not in the Constitution…” is a failed and ignorant argument.

Congress represents the will of the people, its measures are presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. Ogden v. Saunders (1827).

The people are thus free to compel their elected representatives to amend or repeal legislation they consider offensive to the Constitution; and failing that, seek relief in the Federal courts to have measures perceived un-Constitutional made subject to judicial review.

The people ultimately decide what is or is not Constitutional, or within the authority of Congress, be that through the ballot box or the courts.

Therefore, the article is incorrect, Congress has not “successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt,” on the contrary, the American people are for the most part very knowledgeable about their Constitution, the Founding Document’s very case law is evidence of that.

And show me where in the Constitution the SC was granted the power to interpret such a thing

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is a question that does not pertain to the discussion.

More to the point, demonstrate why you believe that the Constitution cannot change in accord with settled law and the desires of the people?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is a question that does not pertain to the discussion.

More to the point, demonstrate why you believe that the Constitution cannot change in accord with settled law and the desires of the people?

It’s not that the Constitution ‘changes,’ but that we gain a greater, more accurate understanding of its original intent.

As Justice Kennedy correctly observed in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can anyone explain what Williams' point was?

See you still don't get it. The more you ask, the more no one will reply to you. I certainly wouldn't reply because of your attitude. But that's just me. People know you and how you operate. You like to pretend to want to "discuss" an issue but all you want is something...anything to launch your ad hominem barage over.

You're a self -appointed, know-it-all expert on everything but in reality you know nothing about anything much like Jake which is likely why you both get along so well.

You have more personal attacks on posters in this thread than anyone else in it. AND you have the least number of posts with any substantive relevance to the topic YOU started.

You engaged in absolutely NO discussion of the issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's so good about democracy and majority rule?

The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule.

That simply isn't true.

Consider Alexander Hamilton, for example, in Federalist 22, where he is pointing out flaws in the Articles of Confederation:

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation.

Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina.

Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.

Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense.

It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third.

The Federalist #22

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hamilton goes on to object to the concept of super-majorities being necessary. The current use of the filibuster is the best example of that, where a minority thwarts the majority.

If as Williams claimed, Hamilton 'abhorred' majorities, then why would he say this?

To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser....

The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

beretta304 is fail