I just had a brilliant idea!

[NightFox]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

I’d rather we just remove the party labels from the ballot entirely, at least that will encourage the voters to do at least a little bit of homework before pulling the lever.

Once we have that in place we can move on to requiring a basic CIVICS test before being allowed to vote; if you think the three branches of the Federal Government are the Olive Branch, the Hickory Branch and the Money Tree Branch then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Interesting... just curious to see where you stand on gun control laws.

I'm against them, individuals have the right to defend themselves and thus the right to procure the means to defend themselves without Government interference.

Ok so no restrictions to guns but restrictions to voting... got it.

Where did I ever say “no restrictions to voting”? Self defense is a natural RIGHT, voting isn’t. Heck if I had my way 3/4 of the people who vote now would NOT be allowed to vote, we have far too many uniformed, vote myself some freebies imbeciles casting ballots.

Both are constitutional rights

Actually neither is explicitly PROTECTED in the Constitution, nor is the Constitution the SOURCE of any rights, it simply protects rights that already exist by virtue of our humanity (or if you prefer endowed by the "creator").

The right to self defense has implied Constitutional Protection via the 2nd Amendment.

Voting has no such protections because it can be TAKEN AWAY (e.g. if you're a felon) and you're not born with the explicit right to vote (hint: it's a PRIVILEDGE), government cannot REMOVE or ENDOW a right from/to a human being only SUPPRESS or PROTECT ones that already exist.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

Well... for one thing, you put this in the wrong category - it belongs in the Constitution category. If this forum system is too complicated, then your ability to understand the government is probably less than adequate. But do not be discouraged, very few take the time to watch C-SPAN for weeks on end to get a good understanding.

To "save Democracy," you are going to need to present a pathway to true democracy. As of the present, republics are the most efficient self-governments.

And, how do you hold people to their political party?

Interesting idea. So for example, if it's the Democrat's turn to be President, does everyone vote for the Democrat nominee for President?

Exactly!

How are you going to hold people who want to be president to a political party?

What if they just make up their own political party to skirt your brilliant idea???

You have a long way to go before you can claim brilliance. I thought you were kind of smart at the beginning of the other discussion you started, but then you wandered, and now this fiasco.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

and I'll back you to the hilt

I know its pride month, but damn..

Did you somehow get the impression this thread is in the FZ?

It belongs in the Constitution category

 

[Slade3200]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

Well... for one thing, you put this in the wrong category - it belongs in the Constitution category. If this forum system is too complicated, then your ability to understand the government is probably less than adequate. But do not be discouraged, very few take the time to watch C-SPAN for weeks on end to get a good understanding.

To "save Democracy," you are going to need to present a pathway to true democracy. As of the present, republics are the most efficient self-governments.

I'm the OP and I wanted to have a political discussion about the idea not a Constitutional one, though I'm fine discussing the constitutional aspects of it if you'd like.

What do you mean by "True Democracy"?

 

[Slade3200]

and I'll back you to the hilt

I know its pride month, but damn..

Did you somehow get the impression this thread is in the FZ?

It belongs in the Constitution category

No it doesn't

 

[Slade3200]

Don't worry y'all, I had another rad idea. What if we dropped the VP spot for the campaigners and give second place the VP spot with some reformed responsibilities. Chew on that one...

You're welcome

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Don't worry y'all, I had another rad idea. What if we dropped the VP spot for the campaigners and give second place the VP spot with some reformed responsibilities. Chew on that one...

You're welcome

That was how it was in the original rendition of the constitution. It failed, because the political parties played the system somehow, and it leads to the 12th Amendment and the killing of Alexander Hamilton.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

Well... for one thing, you put this in the wrong category - it belongs in the Constitution category. If this forum system is too complicated, then your ability to understand the government is probably less than adequate. But do not be discouraged, very few take the time to watch C-SPAN for weeks on end to get a good understanding.

To "save Democracy," you are going to need to present a pathway to true democracy. As of the present, republics are the most efficient self-governments.

I'm the OP and I wanted to have a political discussion about the idea not a Constitutional one, though I'm fine discussing the constitutional aspects of it if you'd like.

What do you mean by "True Democracy"?

Get lost

 

[Rye Catcher]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

Ummm...imagine how much more corrupt trump could have been under this Constitutional Amendment (if, of course, that was possible).

 

[Slade3200]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

Well... for one thing, you put this in the wrong category - it belongs in the Constitution category. If this forum system is too complicated, then your ability to understand the government is probably less than adequate. But do not be discouraged, very few take the time to watch C-SPAN for weeks on end to get a good understanding.

To "save Democracy," you are going to need to present a pathway to true democracy. As of the present, republics are the most efficient self-governments.

I'm the OP and I wanted to have a political discussion about the idea not a Constitutional one, though I'm fine discussing the constitutional aspects of it if you'd like.

What do you mean by "True Democracy"?

Get lost

Get lost?! Its my thread! haha

 

[Slade3200]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

Ummm...imagine how much more corrupt trump could have been under this Constitutional Amendment (if, of course, that was possible).

Trump is a campaigner not a manager. He tried to manage during his first two years and failed and then switched to campaign mode for the last two years. With my idea there would be no need to campaign because he would not have been able to win reelection.

 

[Rigby5]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

I’d rather we just remove the party labels from the ballot entirely, at least that will encourage the voters to do at least a little bit of homework before pulling the lever.

Once we have that in place we can move on to requiring a basic CIVICS test before being allowed to vote; if you think the three branches of the Federal Government are the Olive Branch, the Hickory Branch and the Money Tree Branch then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Interesting... just curious to see where you stand on gun control laws.

I'm against them, individuals have the right to defend themselves and thus the right to procure the means to defend themselves without Government interference.

Ok so no restrictions to guns but restrictions to voting... got it.

Where did I ever say “no restrictions to voting”? Self defense is a natural RIGHT, voting isn’t. Heck if I had my way 3/4 of the people who vote now would NOT be allowed to vote, we have far too many uniformed, vote myself some freebies imbeciles casting ballots.

Both are constitutional rights

Actually neither is explicitly PROTECTED in the Constitution, nor is the Constitution the SOURCE of any rights, it simply protects rights that already exist by virtue of our humanity (or if you prefer endowed by the "creator").

The right to self defense has implied Constitutional Protection via the 2nd Amendment.

Voting has no such protections because it can be TAKEN AWAY (e.g. if you're a felon) and you're not born with the explicit right to vote (hint: it's a PRIVILEDGE), government cannot REMOVE or ENDOW a right from/to a human being only SUPPRESS or PROTECT ones that already exist.

I disagree that it can be legal to take away the voting rights of a convicted felon.
That requires taxation without representation, which is a well known violation of inherent individual rights.

 

[NightFox]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

I’d rather we just remove the party labels from the ballot entirely, at least that will encourage the voters to do at least a little bit of homework before pulling the lever.

Once we have that in place we can move on to requiring a basic CIVICS test before being allowed to vote; if you think the three branches of the Federal Government are the Olive Branch, the Hickory Branch and the Money Tree Branch then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Interesting... just curious to see where you stand on gun control laws.

I'm against them, individuals have the right to defend themselves and thus the right to procure the means to defend themselves without Government interference.

Ok so no restrictions to guns but restrictions to voting... got it.

Where did I ever say “no restrictions to voting”? Self defense is a natural RIGHT, voting isn’t. Heck if I had my way 3/4 of the people who vote now would NOT be allowed to vote, we have far too many uniformed, vote myself some freebies imbeciles casting ballots.

Both are constitutional rights

Actually neither is explicitly PROTECTED in the Constitution, nor is the Constitution the SOURCE of any rights, it simply protects rights that already exist by virtue of our humanity (or if you prefer endowed by the "creator").

The right to self defense has implied Constitutional Protection via the 2nd Amendment.

Voting has no such protections because it can be TAKEN AWAY (e.g. if you're a felon) and you're not born with the explicit right to vote (hint: it's a PRIVILEDGE), government cannot REMOVE or ENDOW a right from/to a human being only SUPPRESS or PROTECT ones that already exist.

I disagree that it can be legal to take away the voting rights of a convicted felon.
That requires taxation without representation, which is a well known violation of inherent individual rights.

First off, "legal" doesn't have anything to do with the question of inherent rights given that the law is just an opinion on a piece of paper. How do you figure "taxation without representation" is an "inherent individual right"? Taxation is a man made construction and so is "representation", you have inherent property rights (stemming from ownership of oneself ) but you have no inherent right regarding the mechanism whereby you surrender that property to authority, if it's taken without your consent then your property rights are being violated, if you give consent then they're not.

At best one might interject the consideration of contract but since nobody signed a contract at birth regarding the matter, it's an implicit one based upon the idea that taxes are the price tag for operating in a given society which an individual would have a inherent right to opt out of (and thus lose any benefits associated with it), if you choose instead to operate in that society, enjoy the benefits and NOT pay the price tag, then YOU are violating the property rights of others (you're essentially stealing).

.. and given all that, even being denied the PRIVILEDGE (not inherent) of voting doesn't automatically mean "no representation", in the United States you still have "representation" if you don't vote, it just might not be the "representation" you'd prefer.

 

[Rigby5]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

I’d rather we just remove the party labels from the ballot entirely, at least that will encourage the voters to do at least a little bit of homework before pulling the lever.

Once we have that in place we can move on to requiring a basic CIVICS test before being allowed to vote; if you think the three branches of the Federal Government are the Olive Branch, the Hickory Branch and the Money Tree Branch then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Interesting... just curious to see where you stand on gun control laws.

I'm against them, individuals have the right to defend themselves and thus the right to procure the means to defend themselves without Government interference.

Ok so no restrictions to guns but restrictions to voting... got it.

Where did I ever say “no restrictions to voting”? Self defense is a natural RIGHT, voting isn’t. Heck if I had my way 3/4 of the people who vote now would NOT be allowed to vote, we have far too many uniformed, vote myself some freebies imbeciles casting ballots.

Both are constitutional rights

Actually neither is explicitly PROTECTED in the Constitution, nor is the Constitution the SOURCE of any rights, it simply protects rights that already exist by virtue of our humanity (or if you prefer endowed by the "creator").

The right to self defense has implied Constitutional Protection via the 2nd Amendment.

Voting has no such protections because it can be TAKEN AWAY (e.g. if you're a felon) and you're not born with the explicit right to vote (hint: it's a PRIVILEDGE), government cannot REMOVE or ENDOW a right from/to a human being only SUPPRESS or PROTECT ones that already exist.

I disagree that it can be legal to take away the voting rights of a convicted felon.
That requires taxation without representation, which is a well known violation of inherent individual rights.

First off, "legal" doesn't have anything to do with the question of inherent rights given that the law is just an opinion on a piece of paper. How do you figure "taxation without representation" is an "inherent individual right"? Taxation is a man made construction and so is "representation", you have inherent property rights (stemming from ownership of oneself ) but you have no inherent right regarding the mechanism whereby you surrender that property to authority, if it's taken without your consent then your property rights are being violated, if you give consent then they're not.

At best one might interject the consideration of contract but since nobody signed a contract at birth regarding the matter, it's an implicit one based upon the idea that taxes are the price tag for operating in a given society which an individual would have a inherent right to opt out of (and thus lose any benefits associated with it), if you choose instead to operate in that society, enjoy the benefits and NOT pay the price tag, then YOU are violating the property rights of others (you're essentially stealing).

.. and given all that, even being denied the PRIVILEDGE (not inherent) of voting doesn't automatically mean "no representation", in the United States you still have "representation" if you don't vote, it just might not be the "representation" you'd prefer.

No, what is "legal" is based on inherent abstract principles, not mere legislation.
How else could legislation be struck down as unconstitutional unless there were higher principles involved?
In fact, you can't form a government and write a constitution without following a higher set of principles.

Taxation without representation is theft, which is inherently wrong.

While it may not seem terrible in this society at this time, that is because so few people are convicted felons that the rest of the people keep the government from getting out of control. But the principle is totally corrupt, and opens the door for what Russia does, which is to remove the rights of all dissidents by making them convicted felons or committed as insane. It is not a loophole to dictatorship that should be allowed.
Everyone MUST be allowed to vote. That is a principle that must not be allowed to be violated, or the entire democratic republic becomes at risk.

 

[NightFox]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

I’d rather we just remove the party labels from the ballot entirely, at least that will encourage the voters to do at least a little bit of homework before pulling the lever.

Once we have that in place we can move on to requiring a basic CIVICS test before being allowed to vote; if you think the three branches of the Federal Government are the Olive Branch, the Hickory Branch and the Money Tree Branch then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Interesting... just curious to see where you stand on gun control laws.

I'm against them, individuals have the right to defend themselves and thus the right to procure the means to defend themselves without Government interference.

Ok so no restrictions to guns but restrictions to voting... got it.

Where did I ever say “no restrictions to voting”? Self defense is a natural RIGHT, voting isn’t. Heck if I had my way 3/4 of the people who vote now would NOT be allowed to vote, we have far too many uniformed, vote myself some freebies imbeciles casting ballots.

Both are constitutional rights

Actually neither is explicitly PROTECTED in the Constitution, nor is the Constitution the SOURCE of any rights, it simply protects rights that already exist by virtue of our humanity (or if you prefer endowed by the "creator").

The right to self defense has implied Constitutional Protection via the 2nd Amendment.

Voting has no such protections because it can be TAKEN AWAY (e.g. if you're a felon) and you're not born with the explicit right to vote (hint: it's a PRIVILEDGE), government cannot REMOVE or ENDOW a right from/to a human being only SUPPRESS or PROTECT ones that already exist.

I disagree that it can be legal to take away the voting rights of a convicted felon.
That requires taxation without representation, which is a well known violation of inherent individual rights.

First off, "legal" doesn't have anything to do with the question of inherent rights given that the law is just an opinion on a piece of paper. How do you figure "taxation without representation" is an "inherent individual right"? Taxation is a man made construction and so is "representation", you have inherent property rights (stemming from ownership of oneself ) but you have no inherent right regarding the mechanism whereby you surrender that property to authority, if it's taken without your consent then your property rights are being violated, if you give consent then they're not.

At best one might interject the consideration of contract but since nobody signed a contract at birth regarding the matter, it's an implicit one based upon the idea that taxes are the price tag for operating in a given society which an individual would have a inherent right to opt out of (and thus lose any benefits associated with it), if you choose instead to operate in that society, enjoy the benefits and NOT pay the price tag, then YOU are violating the property rights of others (you're essentially stealing).

.. and given all that, even being denied the PRIVILEDGE (not inherent) of voting doesn't automatically mean "no representation", in the United States you still have "representation" if you don't vote, it just might not be the "representation" you'd prefer.

No, what is "legal" is based on inherent abstract principles, not mere legislation.
How else could legislation be struck down as unconstitutional unless there were higher principles involved?
In fact, you can't form a government and write a constitution without following a higher set of principles.

Taxation without representation is theft, which is inherently wrong.

While it may not seem terrible in this society at this time, that is because so few people are convicted felons that the rest of the people keep the government from getting out of control. But the principle is totally corrupt, and opens the door for what Russia does, which is to remove the rights of all dissidents by making them convicted felons or committed as insane. It is not a loophole to dictatorship that should be allowed.
Everyone MUST be allowed to vote. That is a principle that must not be allowed to be violated, or the entire democratic republic becomes at risk.

Before you go down the path of legal being based on “inherent principle “ consider what is and what has been legal.

on what “inherent principle” was slavery made legal?

I think you’re confusing Morality with legality, not even close to the same thing, as Ghandi reportedly said “there are unjust laws, just like there are unjust men.”, unjust men are the reason its dangerous to begin assigning MEN as the source of RIGHTS.

 

[Rigby5]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

I’d rather we just remove the party labels from the ballot entirely, at least that will encourage the voters to do at least a little bit of homework before pulling the lever.

Once we have that in place we can move on to requiring a basic CIVICS test before being allowed to vote; if you think the three branches of the Federal Government are the Olive Branch, the Hickory Branch and the Money Tree Branch then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Interesting... just curious to see where you stand on gun control laws.

I'm against them, individuals have the right to defend themselves and thus the right to procure the means to defend themselves without Government interference.

Ok so no restrictions to guns but restrictions to voting... got it.

Where did I ever say “no restrictions to voting”? Self defense is a natural RIGHT, voting isn’t. Heck if I had my way 3/4 of the people who vote now would NOT be allowed to vote, we have far too many uniformed, vote myself some freebies imbeciles casting ballots.

Both are constitutional rights

Actually neither is explicitly PROTECTED in the Constitution, nor is the Constitution the SOURCE of any rights, it simply protects rights that already exist by virtue of our humanity (or if you prefer endowed by the "creator").

The right to self defense has implied Constitutional Protection via the 2nd Amendment.

Voting has no such protections because it can be TAKEN AWAY (e.g. if you're a felon) and you're not born with the explicit right to vote (hint: it's a PRIVILEDGE), government cannot REMOVE or ENDOW a right from/to a human being only SUPPRESS or PROTECT ones that already exist.

I disagree that it can be legal to take away the voting rights of a convicted felon.
That requires taxation without representation, which is a well known violation of inherent individual rights.

First off, "legal" doesn't have anything to do with the question of inherent rights given that the law is just an opinion on a piece of paper. How do you figure "taxation without representation" is an "inherent individual right"? Taxation is a man made construction and so is "representation", you have inherent property rights (stemming from ownership of oneself ) but you have no inherent right regarding the mechanism whereby you surrender that property to authority, if it's taken without your consent then your property rights are being violated, if you give consent then they're not.

At best one might interject the consideration of contract but since nobody signed a contract at birth regarding the matter, it's an implicit one based upon the idea that taxes are the price tag for operating in a given society which an individual would have a inherent right to opt out of (and thus lose any benefits associated with it), if you choose instead to operate in that society, enjoy the benefits and NOT pay the price tag, then YOU are violating the property rights of others (you're essentially stealing).

.. and given all that, even being denied the PRIVILEDGE (not inherent) of voting doesn't automatically mean "no representation", in the United States you still have "representation" if you don't vote, it just might not be the "representation" you'd prefer.

No, what is "legal" is based on inherent abstract principles, not mere legislation.
How else could legislation be struck down as unconstitutional unless there were higher principles involved?
In fact, you can't form a government and write a constitution without following a higher set of principles.

Taxation without representation is theft, which is inherently wrong.

While it may not seem terrible in this society at this time, that is because so few people are convicted felons that the rest of the people keep the government from getting out of control. But the principle is totally corrupt, and opens the door for what Russia does, which is to remove the rights of all dissidents by making them convicted felons or committed as insane. It is not a loophole to dictatorship that should be allowed.
Everyone MUST be allowed to vote. That is a principle that must not be allowed to be violated, or the entire democratic republic becomes at risk.

Before you go down the path of legal being based on “inherent principle “ consider what is and what has been legal.

on what “inherent principle” was slavery made legal?

I think you’re confusing Morality with legality, not even close to the same thing, as Ghandi reportedly said “there are unjust laws, just like there are unjust men.”, unjust men are the reason its dangerous to begin assigning MEN as the source of RIGHTS.

I think you still have this backwards.
I doubt anyone ever thought slavery was "legal".
They just knew they could get away with it.
And you will notice that everyone, everywhere eventually made slavery illegal.
That is because of the consistency of the inherent principle.
Slavery was never based on any sort of principle, but just might makes right.

I am not at all confusing morality with legality.
Legality has to be based on higher principles that allow you to makes government and pass legislation in a democratic republic.
We choose a democratic republic over a dictatorship because of the viability of its inherent principle, which are vastly better than "might makes right", even if some benevolent dictators were not too bad.
Legality is not just what lawmakers want.
In a democratic republic, legality is based on the defense of inherent rights of individuals only, and their compromise when they come in conflict.
Nothing else.
Morality is completely different because each person can have their own personal belief system based no if they believe in an after life, karma, reincarnation, etc.
Legality instead is based on leaving people to do whatever they want, except when it conflicts with others.
Laws are not legality.
Laws are the imperfect attempt to implement legality.
There are simply principles that work.
Like Blind Justice.
If the rules are written ahead of time, then discrimination or favoritism is automatically reduced.

 

[Slyhunter]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

I’d rather we just remove the party labels from the ballot entirely, at least that will encourage the voters to do at least a little bit of homework before pulling the lever.

Once we have that in place we can move on to requiring a basic CIVICS test before being allowed to vote; if you think the three branches of the Federal Government are the Olive Branch, the Hickory Branch and the Money Tree Branch then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Interesting... just curious to see where you stand on gun control laws.

I'm against them, individuals have the right to defend themselves and thus the right to procure the means to defend themselves without Government interference.

Ok so no restrictions to guns but restrictions to voting... got it.

Where did I ever say “no restrictions to voting”? Self defense is a natural RIGHT, voting isn’t. Heck if I had my way 3/4 of the people who vote now would NOT be allowed to vote, we have far too many uniformed, vote myself some freebies imbeciles casting ballots.

Both are constitutional rights

Actually neither is explicitly PROTECTED in the Constitution, nor is the Constitution the SOURCE of any rights, it simply protects rights that already exist by virtue of our humanity (or if you prefer endowed by the "creator").

The right to self defense has implied Constitutional Protection via the 2nd Amendment.

Voting has no such protections because it can be TAKEN AWAY (e.g. if you're a felon) and you're not born with the explicit right to vote (hint: it's a PRIVILEDGE), government cannot REMOVE or ENDOW a right from/to a human being only SUPPRESS or PROTECT ones that already exist.

I disagree that it can be legal to take away the voting rights of a convicted felon.
That requires taxation without representation, which is a well known violation of inherent individual rights.

First off, "legal" doesn't have anything to do with the question of inherent rights given that the law is just an opinion on a piece of paper. How do you figure "taxation without representation" is an "inherent individual right"? Taxation is a man made construction and so is "representation", you have inherent property rights (stemming from ownership of oneself ) but you have no inherent right regarding the mechanism whereby you surrender that property to authority, if it's taken without your consent then your property rights are being violated, if you give consent then they're not.

At best one might interject the consideration of contract but since nobody signed a contract at birth regarding the matter, it's an implicit one based upon the idea that taxes are the price tag for operating in a given society which an individual would have a inherent right to opt out of (and thus lose any benefits associated with it), if you choose instead to operate in that society, enjoy the benefits and NOT pay the price tag, then YOU are violating the property rights of others (you're essentially stealing).

.. and given all that, even being denied the PRIVILEDGE (not inherent) of voting doesn't automatically mean "no representation", in the United States you still have "representation" if you don't vote, it just might not be the "representation" you'd prefer.

No, what is "legal" is based on inherent abstract principles, not mere legislation.
How else could legislation be struck down as unconstitutional unless there were higher principles involved?
In fact, you can't form a government and write a constitution without following a higher set of principles.

Taxation without representation is theft, which is inherently wrong.

While it may not seem terrible in this society at this time, that is because so few people are convicted felons that the rest of the people keep the government from getting out of control. But the principle is totally corrupt, and opens the door for what Russia does, which is to remove the rights of all dissidents by making them convicted felons or committed as insane. It is not a loophole to dictatorship that should be allowed.
Everyone MUST be allowed to vote. That is a principle that must not be allowed to be violated, or the entire democratic republic becomes at risk.

Before you go down the path of legal being based on “inherent principle “ consider what is and what has been legal.

on what “inherent principle” was slavery made legal?

I think you’re confusing Morality with legality, not even close to the same thing, as Ghandi reportedly said “there are unjust laws, just like there are unjust men.”, unjust men are the reason its dangerous to begin assigning MEN as the source of RIGHTS.

I think you still have this backwards.
I doubt anyone ever thought slavery was "legal".
They just knew they could get away with it.
And you will notice that everyone, everywhere eventually made slavery illegal.
That is because of the consistency of the inherent principle.
Slavery was never based on any sort of principle, but just might makes right.

I am not at all confusing morality with legality.
Legality has to be based on higher principles that allow you to makes government and pass legislation in a democratic republic.
We choose a democratic republic over a dictatorship because of the viability of its inherent principle, which are vastly better than "might makes right", even if some benevolent dictators were not too bad.
Legality is not just what lawmakers want.
In a democratic republic, legality is based on the defense of inherent rights of individuals only, and their compromise when they come in conflict.
Nothing else.
Morality is completely different because each person can have their own personal belief system based no if they believe in an after life, karma, reincarnation, etc.
Legality instead is based on leaving people to do whatever they want, except when it conflicts with others.
Laws are not legality.
Laws are the imperfect attempt to implement legality.
There are simply principles that work.
Like Blind Justice.
If the rules are written ahead of time, then discrimination or favoritism is automatically reduced.

No slavery is still legal in parts of the world, mainly Muslim parts. and there was a time in every history where slavery was legal. Even Israelites had laws permitting slavery.

 

[NightFox]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

I’d rather we just remove the party labels from the ballot entirely, at least that will encourage the voters to do at least a little bit of homework before pulling the lever.

Once we have that in place we can move on to requiring a basic CIVICS test before being allowed to vote; if you think the three branches of the Federal Government are the Olive Branch, the Hickory Branch and the Money Tree Branch then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Interesting... just curious to see where you stand on gun control laws.

I'm against them, individuals have the right to defend themselves and thus the right to procure the means to defend themselves without Government interference.

Ok so no restrictions to guns but restrictions to voting... got it.

Where did I ever say “no restrictions to voting”? Self defense is a natural RIGHT, voting isn’t. Heck if I had my way 3/4 of the people who vote now would NOT be allowed to vote, we have far too many uniformed, vote myself some freebies imbeciles casting ballots.

Both are constitutional rights

Actually neither is explicitly PROTECTED in the Constitution, nor is the Constitution the SOURCE of any rights, it simply protects rights that already exist by virtue of our humanity (or if you prefer endowed by the "creator").

The right to self defense has implied Constitutional Protection via the 2nd Amendment.

Voting has no such protections because it can be TAKEN AWAY (e.g. if you're a felon) and you're not born with the explicit right to vote (hint: it's a PRIVILEDGE), government cannot REMOVE or ENDOW a right from/to a human being only SUPPRESS or PROTECT ones that already exist.

I disagree that it can be legal to take away the voting rights of a convicted felon.
That requires taxation without representation, which is a well known violation of inherent individual rights.

First off, "legal" doesn't have anything to do with the question of inherent rights given that the law is just an opinion on a piece of paper. How do you figure "taxation without representation" is an "inherent individual right"? Taxation is a man made construction and so is "representation", you have inherent property rights (stemming from ownership of oneself ) but you have no inherent right regarding the mechanism whereby you surrender that property to authority, if it's taken without your consent then your property rights are being violated, if you give consent then they're not.

At best one might interject the consideration of contract but since nobody signed a contract at birth regarding the matter, it's an implicit one based upon the idea that taxes are the price tag for operating in a given society which an individual would have a inherent right to opt out of (and thus lose any benefits associated with it), if you choose instead to operate in that society, enjoy the benefits and NOT pay the price tag, then YOU are violating the property rights of others (you're essentially stealing).

.. and given all that, even being denied the PRIVILEDGE (not inherent) of voting doesn't automatically mean "no representation", in the United States you still have "representation" if you don't vote, it just might not be the "representation" you'd prefer.

No, what is "legal" is based on inherent abstract principles, not mere legislation.
How else could legislation be struck down as unconstitutional unless there were higher principles involved?
In fact, you can't form a government and write a constitution without following a higher set of principles.

Taxation without representation is theft, which is inherently wrong.

While it may not seem terrible in this society at this time, that is because so few people are convicted felons that the rest of the people keep the government from getting out of control. But the principle is totally corrupt, and opens the door for what Russia does, which is to remove the rights of all dissidents by making them convicted felons or committed as insane. It is not a loophole to dictatorship that should be allowed.
Everyone MUST be allowed to vote. That is a principle that must not be allowed to be violated, or the entire democratic republic becomes at risk.

Before you go down the path of legal being based on “inherent principle “ consider what is and what has been legal.

on what “inherent principle” was slavery made legal?

I think you’re confusing Morality with legality, not even close to the same thing, as Ghandi reportedly said “there are unjust laws, just like there are unjust men.”, unjust men are the reason its dangerous to begin assigning MEN as the source of RIGHTS.

I think you still have this backwards.
I doubt anyone ever thought slavery was "legal".
They just knew they could get away with it.
And you will notice that everyone, everywhere eventually made slavery illegal.
That is because of the consistency of the inherent principle.
Slavery was never based on any sort of principle, but just might makes right.

I am not at all confusing morality with legality.
Legality has to be based on higher principles that allow you to makes government and pass legislation in a democratic republic.
We choose a democratic republic over a dictatorship because of the viability of its inherent principle, which are vastly better than "might makes right", even if some benevolent dictators were not too bad.
Legality is not just what lawmakers want.
In a democratic republic, legality is based on the defense of inherent rights of individuals only, and their compromise when they come in conflict.
Nothing else.
Morality is completely different because each person can have their own personal belief system based no if they believe in an after life, karma, reincarnation, etc.
Legality instead is based on leaving people to do whatever they want, except when it conflicts with others.
Laws are not legality.
Laws are the imperfect attempt to implement legality.
There are simply principles that work.
Like Blind Justice.
If the rules are written ahead of time, then discrimination or favoritism is automatically reduced.

Sorry, to say, SLAVERY was legal and codified into law, there were whole sets of laws in many countries governing it (including of course the United States), just like their were laws governing the ownership, sale and purchasing of land.

Morality isn’t just an individual viewpoint, it is the come set of beliefs regarding right & wrong, virtue and rights of all that are commonly shared. In my view they are the basis upon which we exercise our hardwired tendency to TRUST one another, which is of course a survival instinct. It’s why we as a species have a tendency to assign it a source (usually divinity but not always).

We’ll have to agree to disagree with respect to the nature of legality though, we’re very apart on how you & I view the nature of the law.

Good conversion Rigby5 , very thought provoking, thanks.

 

[CowboyTed]

With all this talk about our democracy being threatened I had an idea that would save it! We make the presidential term 6 years and then prevent the same political party from holding power in consecutive terms.

You’re welcome!

So we can have a candidate as long as we put up with Hitler every 6 years...

Ever think of a system that yields more than two candidates... Both left and right here have being proposing different ones for years..

How about simple preference voting on a popular vote... Will give more than one choice when voting..

 

[CowboyTed]

You all underestimate politician's ability to game, scam and corrupt the limits we place on their power.

There is little democracy because any attempt to give actual democracy is shot down.

For Parliament (much like Congress)
Other countries have multi-seat preference voting.

This massively reduces the power of the caucus and gives that power in to the hands of the people.
It also allows regular voters to not to select a party but select a candidate knowing if their candidate is not viable, their vote goes to the next viable candidate..

For Republicans this could mean not only voting Republican but also selecting the individual candidate in the GOP they like, but if their vote was considered "surplus" for a GOP candidate, then there vote would be used for a viable candidate they liked most form other parties..