Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[PrometheusBound]

If the whim of the majority violates the rights of the individual then you can't have it.

Plain and simple.

Chicken and egg again. The individual got the rights legally protected only because the majority provided for that protection.

It's not a case of chicken and egg. Everyone has individual rights. These are not rights anyone else is obligated to provide or must provide, but rights which are granted simply by the inaction of other people. In other words, you are born with these rights.

That's not debatable.

You declare victory and expect us to surrender. Rights have to be earned. Second, it is the obligation of someone who claims a right to convince others that this right does not threaten them, not just declare that they are paranoiac or are hating him just to feel powerful.

 

[RKMBrown]

No right is given by permission, that would be called a Privilege.

You are born with your rights, from the Creator.

In fact, all rights are retained and reserved to the People, as per the Ninth Amendment. Reading from our [Aegis of Liberty] letter to the Supreme Court:



....



This makes YOU ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

The Ninth Amendment is in the Constitution because the Majority agreed to put it there.

Carby keeps saying that ^ trite blather as though it is somehow meaningful or illuminating. It isn't.

Of course the majority agreed to it.

By that same logic, the majority agreed to Prohibition, too. Yet, it no longer exists.

Still, a simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a man to speak ill of the GOP. A simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a woman to speak ill of the Democrat Parody, either.

Why is it that a majority cannot simply write such a law?

Gee. That's a real poser.

Oh wait. No it isn't. Such laws cannot be validly written by the majority BECAUSE we do not live in a simple or simple minded "democracy." There are Constitutional prohibitions in place that negate the power of a majority to simply enact such laws.

QFT and a Bump

 

[PrometheusBound]

I find it particularly interesting how people who advocate majority rule believe that the majority opinions are just no matter what.

At the risk of sounding like a cliche: Just because most people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.

The majority can be wrong, but only the majority has the right to be wrong. Under this insulting system, they pay for the mistakes of a tiny minority of well-connected politicians, who only suffer the slight harm of not getting re-elected.

There is no such thing as a tyranny of the majority, which is a contradiction. How can people tyrannize over themselves? Who judges that the will of the people against a minority is irrational and tyrannical? If it is, it is the duty of the minority to persuade the majority to a different opinion, not have it forced upon them and re-inforced when it is proven by high crime or whatever we are forced to stomach that the majority had been right all along. Giving authority to pre-owned politicians is like an orphan getting to choose his parents. Anyone with such contempt for the people to call them a mob or dependent children is a traitor and should be punished appropriately. If you consider to be an inferior herd, your swollen head is only fit for a guillotine.

What a bunch of anarchist crapola.

Those who call empowering the majority "mob rule" want to establish snob rule. Your inferiority creates a desperate need to feel superior by just claiming to be superior or by slavishly following a class that you want to believe is superior.

 

[RKMBrown]

The majority can be wrong, but only the majority has the right to be wrong. Under this insulting system, they pay for the mistakes of a tiny minority of well-connected politicians, who only suffer the slight harm of not getting re-elected.

There is no such thing as a tyranny of the majority, which is a contradiction. How can people tyrannize over themselves? Who judges that the will of the people against a minority is irrational and tyrannical? If it is, it is the duty of the minority to persuade the majority to a different opinion, not have it forced upon them and re-inforced when it is proven by high crime or whatever we are forced to stomach that the majority had been right all along. Giving authority to pre-owned politicians is like an orphan getting to choose his parents. Anyone with such contempt for the people to call them a mob or dependent children is a traitor and should be punished appropriately. If you consider to be an inferior herd, your swollen head is only fit for a guillotine.

What a bunch of anarchist crapola.

Those who call empowering the majority "mob rule" want to establish snob rule. Your inferiority creates a desperate need to feel superior by just claiming to be superior or by slavishly following a class that you want to believe is superior.

Why would you say minority groups that are attacked by mob rule are all snobs?

Gays are snobs? Blacks are snobs? Huh?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Rights have to be earned.

The Founding Fathers SPIT on you.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

In your mind, there is an EXTREMELY Anointed class of Rulers, that decide if we are worthy of being granted rights (or privileges).

The Ninth Amendment is written in order to forever secure the Popular Sovereignty that was transferred from the crown to the People after the American Revolution and declared in the Declaration of Independence; this was recognized by the SUPREME COURT ITSELF:

All the people of this country were then, subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; . . . From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it; . . . Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; . . .
(p.471) At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

YOU ARE POISON
BEWARE
PROMETHEUS IS A GOVERNMENT DISINFORMATION AGENT
HE HAS BEEN EXPOSED​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The theory of Divine Right asserts that God divides men by certain distinctions, Kings and Subjects, just as God divides the human species into male and female. The King is Sovereign, exercising supreme authority in all spheres of government, in all places subject to his jurisdiction; therefore, under this doctrine, the King is endowed by the Creator with unlimited rights, for all decisions made by the King are in fact the will of God.

The Subject is inferior to the King, and must accept any edict from the King without question. The Subject only has those rights which the King permits. Those rights may be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Some Subjects will enjoy being in a privileged class (so long as they remain in favor with the King), elevating their status in both government and society, for if God can create the Distinction of King and Subject among Men, then the King, who rules by the will of God, can create the Distinction of Nobility and Commoner among the Subjects.

Central to the doctrine of Divine Right, was that no Subject may question the King, for questioning any edict of the King was equivalent to challenging the will of God. The King being Sovereign over his Subjects, both Noble and Common, can only be judged by God, or another King, as other Kings rule by the will of God. Thus the Subjects have no power, on heaven or earth, to depose of their King.

However, during the middle of the 17th Century, a man named John Milton came to challenge the legitimacy of the Divine Right doctrine itself. Milton argued that the King's authority was derived from the people, and thus the King's power is only granted to him by Popular Sovereignty. Most important is that the people derive this sovereignty from God, and that these Sovereigns have both the right and the obligation to overthrow a tyrannical King. Here the roles of King and Subject are reversed, the Subjects are Sovereign over the King; the King only rules as a privilege extended to him by the people, a privilege that can be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Overall, the King is a Servant to the Public, hence the term public servant.

The theory presented by John Milton was only rudimentary at best. It was from this idea that great philosophers and other writers would build upon, paving the way towards republican form of government, social contract and natural rights (the most important of the aforementioned). The first of these philosophers to whom we pay homage is John Locke, the most influential of all the Enlightenment thinkers upon the Constitution of the United States.

In the year 1689, John Locke published Two Treatises on Government, in direct response to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, a book that declared that all government is absolute monarchy, and that no man is born free. In the very beginning of Filmer's book, he states:

'Mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power which any one man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude' …

But howsoever this vulgar opinion [above paragraph] hath of late obtained a great reputation, yet it is not to be found in the ancient fathers and doctors of the primitive Church. It contradicts the doctrine and history of the Holy Scriptures, the constant practice of all ancient monarchies, and the very principles of the law of nature. It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in divinity or dangerous in policy …

This desperate assertion whereby kings are made subject to the censures and deprivations of their subjects follows — as the authors of it conceive — as a necessary consequence of that former position of the supposed natural equality and freedom of mankind, and liberty to choose what form of government it please …

Secondly, I am not to question or quarrel at the rights or liberties of this or any other nation; my task is chiefly to inquire from whom these first came, not to dispute what or how many these are, but whether they were derived from the laws of natural liberty or from the grace and bounty of princes. My desire and hope is that the people of England may and do enjoy as ample privileges as any nation under heaven; the greatest liberty in the world — if it be duly considered — is for a people to live under a monarch. It is the Magna Charta of this kingdom; all other shows or pretexts of liberty are but several degrees of slavery, and a liberty only to destroy liberty.

Notice the text in bold, Sir Robert would have his readers believe that they have no rights, only privileges which are extended by the grace and goodwill of the King. Herein exists the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, where the King is Sovereign, and the Subjects are no more than serfs. In the words of John Locke, from the first chapter of his Treatise:

...that in a book [Patriarcha], which was to provide chains for all mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand, useful perhaps to such, whose skill and business it is to raise a dust, and would blind the people, the better to mislead them; but in truth not of any force to draw those into bondage, who have their eyes open, and so much sense about them, as to consider, that chains are but an ill wearing, how much care soever hath been taken to file and polish them.

The ancient strife between Classical Liberalism and Statism had been ever going, and continues to this very day. Either we are born with certain unalienable rights, bestowed upon us by the Creator, or we are born as Subjects, a distinction chosen for us by the Creator, and we exist at the mercy and grace of Kings.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The majority can be wrong, but only the majority has the right to be wrong.

What?



These politicians pay by losing their jobs.



The majority are tyrannical towards others who are not composed of the majority. This is called 'the minority.'

The examples should really be simple without someone having to explain them to you.



The individuals who lose their individual liberties as a result. If you really need an example, all you have to do is ask.

If it is, it is the duty of the minority to persuade the majority to a different opinion, not have it forced upon them and re-inforced when it is proven by high crime or whatever we are forced to stomach that the majority had been right all along. Giving authority to pre-owned politicians is like an orphan getting to choose his parents. Anyone with such contempt for the people to call them a mob or dependent children is a traitor and should be punished appropriately. If you consider to be an inferior herd, your swollen head is only fit for a guillotine.

Listen. I'll try to explain this to you in the best way that I can.
That's not the same thing as figuring out what is right.

Don't insult me with your illusion of superiority. Typical of your inferior IQ is the reasoning that if the majority isn't always right, it must be always wrong. Guess what, when the fake representatives are wrong, it is always the law that we must obey them. I'd rather have to obey the majority them a smaller group, it's that simple. You just want to inflate your pathetic ego by imagining yourself to be wise or a follower of the wise while the majority of people are beneath your contempt. Swollen heads get chopped off. Besides, you're nothing. You're just a bootlicking yes man, a house slave who wants the rest of us to obey your Masters' minority will.

This is probably more logic than I can expect from someone who knows jack shit about Marie Antoinette's history, but only a dumbass thinks being at the whim of the mob is a good thing. Intelligent people know that the IQ of a mob is the IQ of its stupidest member, divided by the number of people in the mob.

But then, you don't really want mob rule because you trust the "wisdom" of the mob. You want it because you want your revered leaders to be able to manipulate the mob into doing whatever they like.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Ninth Amendment is in the Constitution because the Majority agreed to put it there.

Really, I thought it was there ONLY because 3/4 of the State Legislatures ratified it.

Article V, US Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Also the Ninth Amendment was implicit BEFORE and AFTER it's existence. There was a debate over even having a BIll of Rights, since it was assumed to be COMMON SENSE that these rights, and many other NOT ENUMERATED were retained and reserved to the People.

 

[RKMBrown]

What?



These politicians pay by losing their jobs.



The majority are tyrannical towards others who are not composed of the majority. This is called 'the minority.'

The examples should really be simple without someone having to explain them to you.



The individuals who lose their individual liberties as a result. If you really need an example, all you have to do is ask.



Listen. I'll try to explain this to you in the best way that I can.
That's not the same thing as figuring out what is right.

Don't insult me with your illusion of superiority. Typical of your inferior IQ is the reasoning that if the majority isn't always right, it must be always wrong. Guess what, when the fake representatives are wrong, it is always the law that we must obey them. I'd rather have to obey the majority them a smaller group, it's that simple. You just want to inflate your pathetic ego by imagining yourself to be wise or a follower of the wise while the majority of people are beneath your contempt. Swollen heads get chopped off. Besides, you're nothing. You're just a bootlicking yes man, a house slave who wants the rest of us to obey your Masters' minority will.

This is probably more logic than I can expect from someone who knows jack shit about Marie Antoinette's history, but only a dumbass thinks being at the whim of the mob is a good thing. Intelligent people know that the IQ of a mob is the IQ of its stupidest member, divided by the number of people in the mob.

But then, you don't really want mob rule because you trust the "wisdom" of the mob. You want it because you want your revered leaders to be able to manipulate the mob into doing whatever they like.

Close. I would argue that the IQ of a mob is the average IQ of its loudest/most influential member(s).

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Anything to take away the vote

A conservatives biggest enemy

Election 2000, Gore tried to steal Florida away from Bush 3 times before the Florida Secretary of State said "enough!"

And all 3 times, Bush won. But oh, no, you liberals to this day keep the lie alive how Bush and conservatives took away the vote.

We didn't do it but it pissed off liberals to be told no after hitting the wall 3 times.

Conservatives do hate something though; we hate to see Lilliputian liberals slamming their head against the wall over and over and over.

It's so unnecessary.

Which party was blocking a recount?

The Party that said "enough" to the other Party's efforts to steal the election.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Democracy and a hereditary democracy cannot co-exist. The very first law of democracy must be to cut off the children of the rich at age 18. So the Libretardian house slaves have no right to slam any democracy that didn't do that.

Second this illogical conclusion from the fact that the Founding Fodder studied 2,000 years of political rhetoric should be compared to the inconclusive fact that 18th Century scientists had 2,000 years of science to back them up. The Constitution is nothing but an obsolete horse-and-buggy document.

Third, the obstructive Amendment process is merely an extension of the anti-democratic Constitution itself. Like a dictator, it defines its own limits in a manner characteristic of the dictator himself.

Fourth, these pseudo-democracies were created by the hereditary rulers they were supposed to replace. The people have never been allowed to create their own form of government.

Fifth, the word demagogue does not imply a leader of the people who was born in the same class as the majority of the people. A demagogue is merely an aristocrat who wants to sucker the people into supporting him against the other Heirheads, just as in the War of the Roses, in what is known as a "palace revolution." One rose may win, but all the majority of those who fought for that ignoble noble house get is the thorns.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The very first law of democracy must be to cut off the children of the rich at age 18.

The obstructive Amendment process is merely an extension of the anti-democratic Constitution itself.

...

Keep talking bro, you're doing my job for me.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Democracy and a hereditary democracy cannot co-exist. The very first law of democracy must be to cut off the children of the rich at age 18. So the Libretardian house slaves have no right to slam any democracy that didn't do that.

Second this illogical conclusion from the fact that the Founding Fodder studied 2,000 years of political rhetoric should be compared to the inconclusive fact that 18th Century scientists had 2,000 years of science to back them up. The Constitution is nothing but an obsolete horse-and-buggy document.

Third, the obstructive Amendment process is merely an extension of the anti-democratic Constitution itself. Like a dictator, it defines its own limits in a manner characteristic of the dictator himself.

Fourth, these pseudo-democracies were created by the hereditary rulers they were supposed to replace. The people have never been allowed to create their own form of government.

Fifth, the word demagogue does not imply a leader of the people who was born in the same class as the majority of the people. A demagogue is merely an aristocrat who wants to sucker the people into supporting him against the other Heirheads, just as in the War of the Roses, in what is known as a "palace revolution." One rose may win, but all the majority of those who fought for that ignoble noble house get is the thorns.

WTF is this guy talking about?

I have heard of "liberoids."

I have heard of "Libtards."

I have heard Libertarians similarly belittled. And conservatives, too.

But, WTF is a "Libretardian?" It looks like a combination of a feeble put down attempt and atrocious spelling.

"Libretardian house slave?" WTF? I don't mind a guy talking in shorthand or even in code, but when he's the only one with the cryptographic key, his effort to communicate is kind of undermined.

The balance of whateverthefuck it thinks it is saying gets lost in the hodgepodge of its obscure verbiage.

What little of his gibberish can be divined leads inevitably to the conclusion that it doesn't matter. It may have no particular ability to communicate or persuade, but at least it has nothing of merit to offer anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No right is given by permission, that would be called a Privilege.

You are born with your rights, from the Creator.

In fact, all rights are retained and reserved to the People, as per the Ninth Amendment. Reading from our [Aegis of Liberty] letter to the Supreme Court:



....



This makes YOU ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

The Ninth Amendment is in the Constitution because the Majority agreed to put it there.

Carby keeps saying that ^ trite blather as though it is somehow meaningful or illuminating. It isn't.

Of course the majority agreed to it.

By that same logic, the majority agreed to Prohibition, too. Yet, it no longer exists.

Still, a simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a man to speak ill of the GOP. A simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a woman to speak ill of the Democrat Parody, either.

Why is it that a majority cannot simply write such a law?

Gee. That's a real poser.

Oh wait. No it isn't. Such laws cannot be validly written by the majority BECAUSE we do not live in a simple or simple minded "democracy." There are Constitutional prohibitions in place that negate the power of a majority to simply enact such laws.

Can a sufficient majority amend the Constitution to take away a women's right to an abortion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Ninth Amendment is in the Constitution because the Majority agreed to put it there.

Really, I thought it was there ONLY because 3/4 of the State Legislatures ratified it.

Article V, US Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Also the Ninth Amendment was implicit BEFORE and AFTER it's existence. There was a debate over even having a BIll of Rights, since it was assumed to be COMMON SENSE that these rights, and many other NOT ENUMERATED were retained and reserved to the People.

3/4's is a majority, genius. 75 is more than 25.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Ninth Amendment is in the Constitution because the Majority agreed to put it there.

Carby keeps saying that ^ trite blather as though it is somehow meaningful or illuminating. It isn't.

Of course the majority agreed to it.

By that same logic, the majority agreed to Prohibition, too. Yet, it no longer exists.

Still, a simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a man to speak ill of the GOP. A simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a woman to speak ill of the Democrat Parody, either.

Why is it that a majority cannot simply write such a law?

Gee. That's a real poser.

Oh wait. No it isn't. Such laws cannot be validly written by the majority BECAUSE we do not live in a simple or simple minded "democracy." There are Constitutional prohibitions in place that negate the power of a majority to simply enact such laws.

Can a sufficient majority amend the Constitution to take away a women's right to an abortion?

Assuming (as you do) that there "is" such a "right" somewhere in the Constitution in the first place (an assumption I don't share), then of course a (3/4) majority (of States for example) could AMEND the constitution to "change" that alleged provision.

Like, for example, the Constitution DOES guarantee the right to life, but THAT got "amended" by judicial fiat. Looks like somebody needs to inform the SCOTUS that it is not in the business (at least not properly or validly) of drafting their own changes to the Constitution.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Can a sufficient majority amend the Constitution to take away a women's right to an abortion?

No, only the State Legislatures can amend the Constitution.

But yes, the State Legislature can prevent women and doctors from committing murder.

54,000,000 babies murdered to date!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Carby keeps saying that ^ trite blather as though it is somehow meaningful or illuminating. It isn't.

Of course the majority agreed to it.

By that same logic, the majority agreed to Prohibition, too. Yet, it no longer exists.

Still, a simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a man to speak ill of the GOP. A simple majority CANNOT outlaw the right of a woman to speak ill of the Democrat Parody, either.

Why is it that a majority cannot simply write such a law?

Gee. That's a real poser.

Oh wait. No it isn't. Such laws cannot be validly written by the majority BECAUSE we do not live in a simple or simple minded "democracy." There are Constitutional prohibitions in place that negate the power of a majority to simply enact such laws.

Can a sufficient majority amend the Constitution to take away a women's right to an abortion?

Assuming (as you do) that there "is" such a "right" somewhere in the Constitution in the first place (an assumption I don't share), then of course a (3/4) majority (of States for example) could AMEND the constitution to "change" that alleged provision.

Like, for example, the Constitution DOES guarantee the right to life, but THAT got "amended" by judicial fiat. Looks like somebody needs to inform the SCOTUS that it is not in the business (at least not properly or validly) of drafting their own changes to the Constitution.

The right to abortion is currently a constitutional right, whether you like it or not.

It is also a minority right, and an individual right.

The majority, in sufficient size, can tyrannize that minority, those individuals, by taking away that right.

Correct? That's what you mean by tyranny of the majority, correct?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can a sufficient majority amend the Constitution to take away a women's right to an abortion?

No, only the State Legislatures can amend the Constitution.

But yes, the State Legislature can prevent women and doctors from committing murder.

54,000,000 babies murdered to date!

A majority of state legislatures is a majority.

So you have no problem with the majority 'tyrannizing' the minority if the tyranny suits your agenda.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Can a sufficient majority amend the Constitution to take away a women's right to an abortion?

Assuming (as you do) that there "is" such a "right" somewhere in the Constitution in the first place (an assumption I don't share), then of course a (3/4) majority (of States for example) could AMEND the constitution to "change" that alleged provision.

Like, for example, the Constitution DOES guarantee the right to life, but THAT got "amended" by judicial fiat. Looks like somebody needs to inform the SCOTUS that it is not in the business (at least not properly or validly) of drafting their own changes to the Constitution.

The right to abortion is currently a constitutional right, whether you like it or not.

It is also a minority right, and an individual right.

The majority, in sufficient size, can tyrannize that minority, those individuals, by taking away that right.

Correct? That's what you mean by tyranny of the majority, correct?

No. The CLAIMED "right" of a woman to have an abortion on demand is a CLAIMED Constitutional "right."

It is not actually any right at all, minority or individual or otherwise.

And it is a violation of another damn well fundamental right. But guys like you prefer to ignore that fact.

The minority currently (with your approval) engages in a tyranny against the majority. But the lawlessness will not stand forever.

You have not the slightest notion of what I mean by "tyranny of the majority" since you have conclusively once again proved that you don't have the first clue about what the term means.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Carby should not bandy about such terms as "tyranny," since he clearly doesn't understand their meaning.