Isn't their a better way to protect the will of the minority.

[MajikMyst]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

The best way is for the minority to start winning elections.

It doesn't get any simpler than that..

Nicely said..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Statist Theocracy"? Please define.

ObamaCare is a Statist Theocracy, because "We are God's partners in matters of life and death," according to Barack Hussein Obama

If that is the case, the rabid religious right should be all over healthcare reform....

Do you ever get tired of being so wrong about almost everything?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

The best way is for the minority to start winning elections.

Well said!!!

 

[beowolfe]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

You all should have been thinking about that when you held the levers of power and began to destroy a lot of the protections that were in place for a political minority. Heck, Cheney and Frist even wanted to take the filibuster away.

I'll repeat a warning I issued when the GOP passed the Patriot Act. "The GOP will not always hold the presidency. Let's see how you like this law when a liberal democrat is in the white house. We didn't get a real liberal, but we did get a democrat.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

You all should have been thinking about that when you held the levers of power and began to destroy a lot of the protections that were in place for a political minority. Heck, Cheney and Frist even wanted to take the filibuster away.

I'll repeat a warning I issued when the GOP passed the Patriot Act. "The GOP will not always hold the presidency. Let's see how you like this law when a liberal democrat is in the white house. We didn't get a real liberal, but we did get a democrat.

Obama has the biggest Liberal voting record in the Senate, how is he not a "real Lib" he's to the left of Mao and Marx

 

[Modbert]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

Where were you seven years ago when the Iraq War started?

Of course you care about the minority, now that you are the minority.

 

[Sarah G]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

The best way is for the minority to start winning elections.

Well said!!!

 

[beowolfe]

"Why should we put a plan out? Our plan is to stop HIM! (Bush)"

-- Nancy Pelosi, 2003.

Back when it was okay to be obstructionist, and not put forth alternatives or ideas.

what did they obstruct....bush got everything he had congress put forward i believe?

Health care reform.

Ironically, back then Pelosi and the Dem leadership didn't care all that much about 50K people dying every day and stuff.

Bush got what he wanted? I guess just like anyone else in a co-dependency relationship does, Bush got his war funding but winked, nodded and gave the Dems each and every thing they wanted too.

Back then we had a co-dependency relationship between the POTUS and Congress. Now it's a marriage.

It's supposed to be an adversarial relationship. And until we get that back, the country is in for alot more trouble.

You can't really be THAT blind, can you? In 2003, the relationship between congress and the POTUS was way beyond a marriage. Actually, it was pretty much the GOP congress being a slave to the Bush administration and giving him practically any and everything he asked for. Especially a war against the wrong country.

 

[Sarah G]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

The best way is for the minority to start winning elections.

It doesn't get any simpler than that..

Nicely said..

Thanks Myst..

 

[MaggieMae]

There really is no need to protect the will of the minority.. There is a reason they are in the minority..

What we really need to do is get rid of both parties and demand that all politicians vote their conscience or the will of their constituance..

The Majority should rule.. Our government should be simplified.. As the will of the people change, so will who is in the majority.. Hence why republicans were ousted over the last few election cycles..

Obama's approval rating is in the tank because he is catering to the minority.. He shouldn't.. We the people elected him to get it done.. Republicans should have no power to stop and prevent the will of the people.. There should be no such thing as a filibuster.. Same is true when the dems are in the minority.. But I still feel the best option is to get rid of both parties.. Let each politician answer to those that elected him..

Oh.. Ban lobbyiests.. Special interest groups should have no more access to our law makers than the common person.. Their votes should not be able to be bought and paid for.. They work for us.. Not the lobbyests..

It doesn't matter who is in the majority or minority. Congress is interested in one thing and one thing only, and that's fundraising to keep them in their respective positions of power. Legislating policy is secondary.

Republicans will grandstand over lower taxes and smaller government and thereby reap great rewards from from lobbyists for private enterprises who expect to gain from lower taxes and deregulation.

Democrats will grandstand over the plight of neverending poverty and how government programs will create a more productive society and thus increase revenues through more consumer spending, and the Democrats thereby reap great rewards from lobbyists who stand to gain from government subsidies.

The financial rewards (donations) to reform government or to limit government are both irresistible to our fundraising congresscritters.

They have reached the point where there's no longer any serious dialog across the aisles in a civil attempt to reach common ground among them regarding policies. It's become a battle over who can get the most face time on national television, who can express the greatest outrage (on national television), all the while obscuring the actual issue.

So essentially, by voting in a new batch, we're just electing different bottom feeders. The only way to FIX the situation is to bar lobbyists and restrict donations to the public only. Since such an action would limit "free speech," this can only be quickly done by a Constitutional Convention, which is a lot easier to do than the Constitutional amendment process. Meaningful campaign reform will never come from sitting congresses because then they might actually have to work 95% of the time instead of shaking down campaign contributions 95% of the time.

 

[MaggieMae]

There really is no need to protect the will of the minority.. There is a reason they are in the minority..

What we really need to do is get rid of both parties and demand that all politicians vote their conscience or the will of their constituance..

The Majority should rule.. Our government should be simplified.. As the will of the people change, so will who is in the majority.. Hence why republicans were ousted over the last few election cycles..

Obama's approval rating is in the tank because he is catering to the minority.. He shouldn't.. We the people elected him to get it done.. Republicans should have no power to stop and prevent the will of the people.. There should be no such thing as a filibuster.. Same is true when the dems are in the minority.. But I still feel the best option is to get rid of both parties.. Let each politician answer to those that elected him..

Oh.. Ban lobbyiests.. Special interest groups should have no more access to our law makers than the common person.. Their votes should not be able to be bought and paid for.. They work for us.. Not the lobbyests..

Pure Democracy always fails. Democracy is "two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty... is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

It always fails because when you subjugate a minority... eventually, they're gonna fight back. Democracy, without the framework of agreed-upon law, is tyranny. It doesn't matter if arbitrary law is dictated by a King or by a 51% majority. It's still arbitrary if it's outside the agreed-upon contract we have with government. Nullify the Constitution, and you have no authority but 'right of might' and that's a sword that can, and does, swing both ways.


On your point about lobbyists... it's so interesting that we see so many supporters of Obama and his healthcare grab with no criticism whatsoever of his pet lobbyists. Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE, sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Board. And PHARMA is planning ad-buys for Obamacare.

(Newser) – Drug companies have authorized their lobbyists to spend up to $150 million on TV ads supporting Barack Obama's health care reform plan—a surprisingly large sum that suggests the industry still has a deal with the White House on capping pharma's costs, reports the New York Times. A few spots that have already aired echo Democratic talking points about consumer protection and universal coverage. The connections run deep—one of the agencies involved is David Axelrod's old firm.

(more...)
Pharma to Push Obama Plan in $150M Ad Blitz - Drug companies get behind health care reform, to Congress' concern

What's also fun is that they never seem to remember that not all corporations are for-profit businesses. Andy Stern of SEIU has been Obama's most frequent visitor.

I agree that Obama did fail, miserably, on the issue of lobbyists which he talked about during the campaign as though he could actually do something about them. He should have known that was an impossibility.

But I completely disagree that democracies don't work. I do still have faith in the system established by the Constitution which is a DEMOCRACY. I realize that conservatives like to argue that the country is a "Republic," but for the most part they are construing the word to mean everyone should be Republicans, and that's not what the single characterization means. The United States is a democratic republic, as set forth in Article I.

 

[MaggieMae]

Previously, the Constitution guaranteed that the minority could never have less freedom than that guaranteed under it; however Pelosi and the Dems and now seeking to impose their Statist Theocracy on the minority in an unconstitutional manner and IT WILL NOT STAND!

Theocracy?

 

[MaggieMae]

Previously, the Constitution guaranteed that the minority could never have less freedom than that guaranteed under it; however Pelosi and the Dems and now seeking to impose their Statist Theocracy on the minority in an unconstitutional manner and IT WILL NOT STAND!

"Statist Theocracy"? Please define.

I asked the same question. Maybe Crusader thinks all non-cons are now Muslims.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is nothing preventing the minority from participating in government. All it takes is a willingness to compromise, seek a middle ground and put aside your ego. Minority parties have contributed to legislation since the country was founded.

The way not to do it is obstruct, delay, tell half truths and lies and then complain that nobody will play with you

You mean the Democratic party is not doing it right when they are out of power?

In the previous administration, the only real obstruction attempts by democrats that I recall were over the war supplementals, which Bush threatened to veto if they didn't get passed as is. The troops needed their equipment, so all the supplementals got passed. If such bills had gone on as long as this health care reform fiasco, we would have either seen many more dead troops or all they would have been home long before now. The rest of the stuff the Republicans and Bush wanted got passed on compromise.

 

[rightwinger]

Didn't the will of the minority elect George Bush over Al Gore??

 

[George Costanza]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now?

Am I reading what I think I am reading here? A conservative, talking about protecting the minority from the will of the majority? I don't believe it. In almost six years of regular participation in political message boards on the Internet, this is, honest to God, the first time I have EVER heard a conservative talking about protecting the minority from the (oppressive) will of the majority (in matters of fundamental right). (FYI, Ihope, that's the entire phrase to use if you're going to use it.)

Let's see - the cons were in control most of the past six years. Think that could have anything to do with how come we never heard them talking about something like this?

I do.

I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

Great idea, Ihope . . . STATE'S RIGHTS! We could go back to the Fifties, when the states could (by God) do whatever they wanted to do - that is until those God damn feds came troopin' into the South and forced them good ol' boys to back off a tad on the racial intolerance.

Yes, sireee BOB!

 

[George Costanza]

Didn't the will of the minority elect George Bush over Al Gore??

Well played!

 

[boedicca]

There really is no need to protect the will of the minority.. There is a reason they are in the minority..

You clearly don't understand the value or the design of our form of government.

The majority, no matter how big, does not have the right to trample upon the rights of the minority.

Of course, the current majority doesn't grok this either.

 

[rdean]

Isn't there a better way to protect the minority from the majority in this country than what we have now? I know we talk constitutional government but when one side really wants something they tend to ignore the restraints of the constitution and force others to live by laws they don't want to live by. I wonder if federalism would work better in this country where the majority, acting through their own state governments, of states would enact laws that they like and the minority can vote for laws that they like for themselves. No matter what the issue is the minority, in their own state, can protect themselves from the wishes of people in other states.

The real question here is "Is there some way we can protect ourselves from Republicans?"

When they were in the majority, they tried, and nearly succeeded, in destroying the world economy and bankrupting America. And now that they are in the minority, they work desperately against fixing Republican failures.

Then they work tirelessly to spread their false morality. Whether it's an attempt to brainwash and indoctrinate children (see Texas), their extreme and unhealthy fixation on the gays, and their terrible attempt to undermine and delegitimize science.

Torture, war, lies, greed, in spite of all that, I believe the country will stand up to Republican right wing extremism.

 

[boedicca]

No. The real question is: how do we protect ourselves from Big Government Statists who have no respect for The Constitution or the Public?