America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[bendog]

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

So what? Democratic principles and rights are enshrined in our Republic. At first the electorate was mostly white male property owners. Now it's every citizen over 18 mostly .

That's different, the majority of the people voting for the Representatives did not change the way the three branches operate. That was a good thing
Changing the vote from the State legislators to the people changed the way that the House, Senate and Presidency works.

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

I understand that Peach, but the voters of each state are doing the voting. Money, or influence, has always come from out of state. The senate's role in legislation, nominees and treaties was unaffected. You/re very civil. I hope I have not posted anything that would indicate your position is not in good faith.

 

[Dante]

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

That's different, the majority of the people voting for the Representatives did not change the way the three branches operate. That was a good thing
Changing the vote from the State legislators to the people changed the way that the House, Senate and Presidency works.

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

I was gonna let it go, but Peach's position is a false comparison. Whether a pol is selling influence to those seeking a senator's power to those who directly hand him cash, or selling it to those who influence opinion, there's no difference in the senator being pressured by special interest. However, with popular vote, there is always the opportunity for individual citizens to base their vote on their own interests.

If we were really talking about making govt open and responsive, then we'd be talking more about bringing decision making out of Washington and closer to the actual voters.

I was not making a position, I am explaining our history.
I agree with you on special interests.
To change that, they need to change the House and Senate rules and change our taxes.

Some of your explanations need explaining.

 

[Dante]

The change in HOW the US Senate gets elected was a move towards more democratic principles -- popular democracy, which the framers of our constitution attempted to keep in check

 

[Skylar]

It used to be and unless we take our country back towards it, we can kiss it good bye

You ever notice every Democrat calls us a Democracy?

Two reasons why, one, because that's what they want, and two, because it sounds like democrat.

But it will be this push for MOB RULE, which is democracy, that will cause another Civil War sooner or later.

The evidence points to 'later'. Much, much later.

The Founder's constitution was deeply, fatally flawed. It actually did result in a civil war. We've dramatically improved it. And gone about half again longer without a civil war than the founders ever did.

When the government can no longer pay the interest on the debt, and the FED Q.E. pumping of the stock market ceases, the economy will crash like nothing ever seen before, and it will take the majority of world economies with it.

Unless it doesn't.

Then we'll see total anarchy.

Unless we don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

So what? Democratic principles and rights are enshrined in our Republic. At first the electorate was mostly white male property owners. Now it's every citizen over 18 mostly .

That's different, the majority of the people voting for the Representatives did not change the way the three branches operate. That was a good thing
Changing the vote from the State legislators to the people changed the way that the House, Senate and Presidency works.

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

lol, another conservative endorses undemocratic government.

You know why the right wants undemocratic government? Because they know their pathetic minority can never inspire enough popular support to be in the majority in a democratic government.

 

[Dante]

Peach's statement about Senators representing a state and not the state's people is inane.

Senators were more or less appointed in order to keep them from cow-towing to the mob-ocracy. Think of it in terms of having elected judges versus appointed ones. The bicameral congress was modeled at that time on the British Parliament and House of Lords

 

[Dante]

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

That's different, the majority of the people voting for the Representatives did not change the way the three branches operate. That was a good thing
Changing the vote from the State legislators to the people changed the way that the House, Senate and Presidency works.

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

lol, another conservative endorses undemocratic government.

You know why the right wants undemocratic government? Because they know their pathetic minority can never inspire enough popular support to be in the majority in a democratic government.

just like progressives, conservatives want more democracy when they think they have the majority. The Bill of Rights exists in many ways as to protect a minority from the majority

 

[Dante]

Popular democracy is anathema to right thinking people and others allergic to nonsense, imbecilities, and idiocies.

 

[Skylar]

Peach's statement about Senators representing a state and not the state's people is inane.

Senators were more or less appointed in order to keep them from cow-towing to the mob-ocracy. Think of it in terms of having elected judges versus appointed ones. The bicameral congress was modeled at that time on the British Parliament and House of Lords

To a large extent, that's true. One thing to remember is that in the Founder's era, 'democracy' was very nearly a pejorative. It was analogous to the tyranny of the majority. Because of the German revival of Greek classics, democracy was known as the system of government that killed Socrates. And was generally considered untenable.

The nation was created as a grand experiment, with even its most enthusiastic supporters expecting to last no more than 20 years or so. It was philosophically based on the power of the people, the rights of the people. But in practice, the founders kept governance thoroughly separated from the people. Of all branches of government, the people voted only for members of the House. All others were done through representatives.

The 800 pound gorilla in the era of the founders...were the State legislatures. They could amend the constitution, assign electors, appoint senators, call constitutional conventions. They dominated all aspects of the federal government save one:

The purse.

 

[peach174]

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

That's different, the majority of the people voting for the Representatives did not change the way the three branches operate. That was a good thing
Changing the vote from the State legislators to the people changed the way that the House, Senate and Presidency works.

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

I understand that Peach, but the voters of each state are doing the voting. Money, or influence, has always come from out of state. The senate's role in legislation, nominees and treaties was unaffected. You/re very civil. I hope I have not posted anything that would indicate your position is not in good faith.[/QUOTE

Like I said earlier. The Senate and House need to change their rules and get that money out of their committees as well as the lobbyists. Tax reform would get rid of a lot of the lobbyists. The money influence in the committees needs to change and that has to be done by how they run the House and Senate.
That is the problem, money from out of state isn't if the people themselves are informed about the issues. It seems that might be changing slowly.

 

[Skylar]

Like I said earlier. The Senate and House need to change their rules and get that money out of their committees as well as the lobbyists. Tax reform would get rid of a lot of the lobbyists. The money influence in the committees needs to change and that has to be done by how they run the House and Senate.
That is the problem, money from out of state isn't if the people themselves are informed about the issues. It seems that might be changing slowly.

[/QUOTE]

You'd need a constitutional amendment since Citizens United. There was never a ruling more caustic to our republic than that one.

 

[TooTall]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

What's surprising to me is that people consider themselves conservatives and at the same time don't want their senators popularly elected.

How do conservatives want their Senators elected?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

lol, another conservative endorses undemocratic government.

You know why the right wants undemocratic government? Because they know their pathetic minority can never inspire enough popular support to be in the majority in a democratic government.

just like progressives, conservatives want more democracy when they think they have the majority. The Bill of Rights exists in many ways as to protect a minority from the majority

Conservatives want to push authority down to smaller balkanized state governments mainly so they can dodge the rights protected by the Constitution.

 

[peach174]

Peach's statement about Senators representing a state and not the state's people is inane.

Senators were more or less appointed in order to keep them from cow-towing to the mob-ocracy. Think of it in terms of having elected judges versus appointed ones. The bicameral congress was modeled at that time on the British Parliament and House of Lords

To a large extent, that's true. One thing to remember is that in the Founder's era, 'democracy' was very nearly a pejorative. It was analogous to the tyranny of the majority. Because of the German revival of Greek classics, democracy was known as the system of government that killed Socrates. And was generally considered untenable.

The nation was created as a grand experiment, with even its most enthusiastic supporters expecting to last no more than 20 years or so. It was philosophically based on the power of the people, the rights of the people. But in practice, the founders kept governance thoroughly separated from the people. Of all branches of government, the people voted only for members of the House. All others were done through representatives.

The 800 pound gorilla in the era of the founders...were the State legislatures. They could amend the constitution, assign electors, appoint senators, call constitutional conventions. They dominated all aspects of the federal government save one:

The purse.

Like I said earlier. The Senate and House need to change their rules and get that money out of their committees as well as the lobbyists. Tax reform would get rid of a lot of the lobbyists. The money influence in the committees needs to change and that has to be done by how they run the House and Senate.
That is the problem, money from out of state isn't if the people themselves are informed about the issues. It seems that might be changing slowly.

You'd need a constitutional amendment since Citizens United. There was never a ruling more caustic to our republic than that one.[/QUOTE]

Good luck with that one.
I don't think that 2/3rds will happen.

 

[Skylar]

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

lol, another conservative endorses undemocratic government.

You know why the right wants undemocratic government? Because they know their pathetic minority can never inspire enough popular support to be in the majority in a democratic government.

just like progressives, conservatives want more democracy when they think they have the majority. The Bill of Rights exists in many ways as to protect a minority from the majority

Conservatives want to push authority down to smaller balkanized state governments mainly so they can dodge the rights protected by the Constitution.

Oh, absolutely. Many modern conservatives lament about 'government overreach'. But what they really mean is FEDERAL government overreach. If its the State government, game on.

Take.....Ron Paul. He wants the USSC forbidden from ruling on issues of abortion, for federal protections protecting the right to choose stripped from all American women. Then he wants the issues sent to the States, where he wants it criminalized.

No thank you.

 

[Dante]

Peach's statement about Senators representing a state and not the state's people is inane.

Senators were more or less appointed in order to keep them from cow-towing to the mob-ocracy. Think of it in terms of having elected judges versus appointed ones. The bicameral congress was modeled at that time on the British Parliament and House of Lords

To a large extent, that's true. One thing to remember is that in the Founder's era, 'democracy' was very nearly a pejorative. It was analogous to the tyranny of the majority. Because of the German revival of Greek classics, democracy was known as the system of government that killed Socrates. And was generally considered untenable.

The nation was created as a grand experiment, with even its most enthusiastic supporters expecting to last no more than 20 years or so. It was philosophically based on the power of the people, the rights of the people. But in practice, the founders kept governance thoroughly separated from the people. Of all branches of government, the people voted only for members of the House. All others were done through representatives.

The 800 pound gorilla in the era of the founders...were the State legislatures. They could amend the constitution, assign electors, appoint senators, call constitutional conventions. They dominated all aspects of the federal government save one:

The purse.

certain types of 'democracy' are anathema today -- and to Dante

interesting factoid: The state legislatures did not get to ratify the constitution.

 

[Dante]

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

lol, another conservative endorses undemocratic government.

You know why the right wants undemocratic government? Because they know their pathetic minority can never inspire enough popular support to be in the majority in a democratic government.

just like progressives, conservatives want more democracy when they think they have the majority. The Bill of Rights exists in many ways as to protect a minority from the majority

Conservatives want to push authority down to smaller balkanized state governments mainly so they can dodge the rights protected by the Constitution.

That is in essence what many/all of the states rights battles have been about

 

[Dante]

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

lol, another conservative endorses undemocratic government.

You know why the right wants undemocratic government? Because they know their pathetic minority can never inspire enough popular support to be in the majority in a democratic government.

just like progressives, conservatives want more democracy when they think they have the majority. The Bill of Rights exists in many ways as to protect a minority from the majority

Conservatives want to push authority down to smaller balkanized state governments mainly so they can dodge the rights protected by the Constitution.

Oh, absolutely. Many modern conservatives lament about 'government overreach'. But what they really mean is FEDERAL government overreach. If its the State government, game on.

Take.....Ron Paul. He wants the USSC forbidden from ruling on issues of abortion, for federal protections protecting the right to choose stripped from all American women. Then he wants the issues sent to the States, where he wants it criminalized.

No thank you.

Conservatives demand an 'activist court' too when it suits their purposes
Witness the legal wrangling over the PPACA/Obamacare: demanding the Court throw out a duly enacted law because they do not like it

 

[Dante]

Peach's statement about Senators representing a state and not the state's people is inane.

Senators were more or less appointed in order to keep them from cow-towing to the mob-ocracy. Think of it in terms of having elected judges versus appointed ones. The bicameral congress was modeled at that time on the British Parliament and House of Lords

To a large extent, that's true. One thing to remember is that in the Founder's era, 'democracy' was very nearly a pejorative. It was analogous to the tyranny of the majority. Because of the German revival of Greek classics, democracy was known as the system of government that killed Socrates. And was generally considered untenable.

The nation was created as a grand experiment, with even its most enthusiastic supporters expecting to last no more than 20 years or so. It was philosophically based on the power of the people, the rights of the people. But in practice, the founders kept governance thoroughly separated from the people. Of all branches of government, the people voted only for members of the House. All others were done through representatives.

The 800 pound gorilla in the era of the founders...were the State legislatures. They could amend the constitution, assign electors, appoint senators, call constitutional conventions. They dominated all aspects of the federal government save one:

The purse.

Like I said earlier. The Senate and House need to change their rules and get that money out of their committees as well as the lobbyists. Tax reform would get rid of a lot of the lobbyists. The money influence in the committees needs to change and that has to be done by how they run the House and Senate.
That is the problem, money from out of state isn't if the people themselves are informed about the issues. It seems that might be changing slowly.

You'd need a constitutional amendment since Citizens United. There was never a ruling more caustic to our republic than that one.

[
Good luck with that one.
I don't think that 2/3rds will happen.

there are more than one way to amend the US Constitution .. hmm...

 

[Skylar]

Peach's statement about Senators representing a state and not the state's people is inane.

Senators were more or less appointed in order to keep them from cow-towing to the mob-ocracy. Think of it in terms of having elected judges versus appointed ones. The bicameral congress was modeled at that time on the British Parliament and House of Lords

To a large extent, that's true. One thing to remember is that in the Founder's era, 'democracy' was very nearly a pejorative. It was analogous to the tyranny of the majority. Because of the German revival of Greek classics, democracy was known as the system of government that killed Socrates. And was generally considered untenable.

The nation was created as a grand experiment, with even its most enthusiastic supporters expecting to last no more than 20 years or so. It was philosophically based on the power of the people, the rights of the people. But in practice, the founders kept governance thoroughly separated from the people. Of all branches of government, the people voted only for members of the House. All others were done through representatives.

The 800 pound gorilla in the era of the founders...were the State legislatures. They could amend the constitution, assign electors, appoint senators, call constitutional conventions. They dominated all aspects of the federal government save one:

The purse.

certain types of 'democracy' are anathema today -- and to Dante

interesting factoid: The state legislatures did not get to ratify the constitution.

Yes, but.

The state legislatures elected the state convention participants in a manner very similar to how electors are selected. The State Conventions for the ratification of the constitution were for all intents and purposes analogous to the Electoral College which elects presidents. And that is a process that the founders intended the State legislatures to dominate.