WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?

[Lonestar_logic]

I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...

Guess what pea brains...

WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for — lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and — an old favorite — prohibit desecration of the American flag.

During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress — a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

Whole Article...

Funny thing about the Constitution, it can and has been amended.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is there any major achievement, figure, event, etc that you don't claim as yours?

You're becoming even more ridiculous than previous evidence had suggested. Oh wait.... no, my mistake... None of it is actually your own thought - you just 'form' your opinions by ingesting someone else's. Got it.

You mean besides Christ, the Founding Fathers and Albert Einstein?

 

[California Girl]

Is there any major achievement, figure, event, etc that you don't claim as yours?

You're becoming even more ridiculous than previous evidence had suggested. Oh wait.... no, my mistake... None of it is actually your own thought - you just 'form' your opinions by ingesting someone else's. Got it.

You mean besides Christ, the Founding Fathers and Albert Einstein?

Yep, yep and yep. All committed socialists.... except they weren't.

Particularly Christ.... because the left loathe Christianity, ridicule it, and dismiss it, until it suits their agenda to use Him for their own ends.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.

I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

 

[johnrocks]

So many interpret it differently from Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano to Mark Levin to the late Senator Byrd who carried around the Constitution to Obama, how did a document written on one page get so damn complicated?

 

[Oddball]

So many interpret it differently from Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano to Mark Levin to the late Senator Byrd who carried around the Constitution to Obama, how did a document written on one page get so damn complicated?

It's the people who wish to get around the document's clear cut constraints who need to "interpret" their way around it, while people like Judge Napolitano and Dr. Paul take it at face value.

 

[daveman]

Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People.

And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do.

Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?

You no longer have the freedom to decide for yourself if you want to purchase health insurance.

Damn Republicans!

 

[daveman]

I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.

I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?

How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?

 

[johnrocks]

So many interpret it differently from Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano to Mark Levin to the late Senator Byrd who carried around the Constitution to Obama, how did a document written on one page get so damn complicated?

It's the people who wish to get around the document's clear cut constraints who need to "interpret" their way around it, while people like Judge Napolitano and Dr. Paul take it at face value.

Hopefully he'll run again

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...

Guess what pea brains...

WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for — lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and — an old favorite — prohibit desecration of the American flag.

During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress — a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

Whole Article...

Let me see if I understand your position.

You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?

Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People.

And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do.

Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?

Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?

BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state.

How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress, a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.

Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.

I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

Please explain to me why Democrats think people are stupid and cannot be trusted if they meet your definition of liberals, and why Republicans want to allow people the freedom to make their own choices if they meet your definition of conservative.

BTW, I love your quoting Goldwater in an attempt to prove your point. Personally I am glad that the PTB in the Republican party only pay lip service to the agenda of the socially conservative Christians. It keeps them quiet, and drives the idiots on the other side nuts.

 

[Bern80]

How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?

How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?

Hate to burst your bubble, but you're going to have a hard time getting an answer from those freedom loving liberals on this one. I've tried. Some paradoxes are just too much for people to spin their way out of. But since we're trying we can add;

How does letting people keep less of their money (repealing the Bush tax cuts) make them more free?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals trust the people that's why they pass 2,000 pages bills covering every facet of their lives.

It's a state of love and trust

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.

I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqp0eXfpiWU]YouTube - Congressman John Dingell: Control The People[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

Let me see if I understand your position.

You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?

Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People.

And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do.

Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?

Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?

BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state.

How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress, a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.

Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.

Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.

Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a direct democracy???WOW, talk about a REAL moron.

The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.

When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People.

And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do.

Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?

Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?

BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state.

How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress, a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.

Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.

Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.

Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a direct democracy???WOW, talk about a REAL moron.

The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.

When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.

I know what the founders did, believe it or not. What I am asking is how going from what we have now to an actual democracy decreases my rights. I notice you were unable to answer that question, which indicates to me that you are unable to actually address the points. As a result you have to engage in name calling and end up proving my assertion that your position is based on the opinions of others.

 

[DiveCon]

Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?

BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state.

How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress, a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.

Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.

Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.

Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a direct democracy???WOW, talk about a REAL moron.

The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.

When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.

I know what the founders did, believe it or not. What I am asking is how going from what we have now to an actual democracy decreases my rights. I notice you were unable to answer that question, which indicates to me that you are unable to actually address the points. As a result you have to engage in name calling and end up proving my assertion that your position is based on the opinions of others.

your first mistake is assuming you would get a logical discussion of the fact from the moronic OP

 

[daveman]

How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?

How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?

Hate to burst your bubble, but you're going to have a hard time getting an answer from those freedom loving liberals on this one. I've tried. Some paradoxes are just too much for people to spin their way out of. But since we're trying we can add;

How does letting people keep less of their money (repealing the Bush tax cuts) make them more free?

No bubble to burst. This ain't my first rodeo.

It all makes perfect sense, if you can think in Newspeak:

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

 

[Bfgrn]

Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?

BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state.

How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress, a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.

Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.

Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.

Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a direct democracy???WOW, talk about a REAL moron.

The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.

When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.

I know what the founders did, believe it or not. What I am asking is how going from what we have now to an actual democracy decreases my rights. I notice you were unable to answer that question, which indicates to me that you are unable to actually address the points. As a result you have to engage in name calling and end up proving my assertion that your position is based on the opinions of others.

I DON'T believe it. You clearly don't know what our founding fathers did.

Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities, notably manifested in what Madison referred to as the "leveling impulse" of democracy to restrict the wealth and power of economic and social elites in favor of the public at large. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state — it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity..."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.

Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a direct democracy???WOW, talk about a REAL moron.

The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.

When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.

I know what the founders did, believe it or not. What I am asking is how going from what we have now to an actual democracy decreases my rights. I notice you were unable to answer that question, which indicates to me that you are unable to actually address the points. As a result you have to engage in name calling and end up proving my assertion that your position is based on the opinions of others.

I DON'T believe it. You clearly don't know what our founding fathers did.

Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities, notably manifested in what Madison referred to as the "leveling impulse" of democracy to restrict the wealth and power of economic and social elites in favor of the public at large. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state — it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity..."

To reiterate, my question is simply, how does allowing everyone to vote on laws that Congress passes restrict my rights. Instead of assuming that you know what I know, or even what my position is in this, please answer the question.