Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting the kind of amendments to the Constitution conservatives support, while out of the other side of their mouths they're talking about rights:

1. an amendment to take away an individual's right to vote for his senators.

2. an amendment to take away a woman's right to an abortion.

3. an amendment to take away an individual's right to legally marry someone of the same sex.

I'm just curious, are there any amendments to the Constitution that conservatives support that would expand individual rights,

as opposed to taking them away?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I don't see you defining it with any clarity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You're disputing that Roe v. Wade established a right to an abortion, at least in some cases?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

He obviously doesn't know what a constitutional right is either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


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

.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

This idiot who's been babbling on and on about tyranny of the majority -

when the issue changes -

is now complaining about tyranny of the minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, that was worth the effort to drag out of him lolololol

 

[g5000]

It's interesting the kind of amendments to the Constitution conservatives support, while out of the other side of their mouths they're talking about rights:

1. an amendment to take away an individual's right to vote for his senators.

2. an amendment to take away a woman's right to an abortion.

3. an amendment to take away an individual's right to legally marry someone of the same sex.

I'm just curious, are there any amendments to the Constitution that conservatives support that would expand individual rights,

as opposed to taking them away?

Our Constitution was not built solely on individual rights. It was also built on states rights, a part which people like you obstinately refuse to acknowledge. It is a bizarre blind spot.

It is a simple fact the 17th amendment greatly eroded states rights. Yet you do not have a problem with that.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

[


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

.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

This idiot who's been babbling on and on about tyranny of the majority -

when the issue changes -

is now complaining about tyranny of the minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, that was worth the effort to drag out of him lolololol

MORE proof that the always dull-witted, vapid moron, Carby, cannot keep up with a conversation AND that he doesn't have the first CLUE about what the word "tyranny" even means.

The Constitution was DESIGNED to avoid the evil of the prospect of a majority tyrannizing a minority. That's the first basic premise that Carby has no hope of ever comprehending.

But in his infantile "analysis," he imagines that the way to protect the right of the majority to have "democracy" is to forbid the very checks and balances that were put into place to protect the minority from arbitrary and capricious actions of the majority.

Carby still hasn't figured out that America is NOT a "democracy." In his childish ignorance, not only does he think America is a "democracy," he actually thinks it should be a "democracy."

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


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

.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

This idiot who's been babbling on and on about tyranny of the majority -

when the issue changes -

is now complaining about tyranny of the minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, that was worth the effort to drag out of him lolololol

MORE proof that the always dull-witted, vapid moron, Carby, cannot keep up with a conversation AND that he doesn't have the first CLUE about what the word "tyranny" even means.

The Constitution was DESIGNED to avoid the evil of the prospect of a majority tyrannizing a minority. That's the first basic premise that Carby has no hope of ever comprehending.

But in his infantile "analysis," he imagines that the way to protect the right of the majority to have "democracy" is to forbid the very checks and balances that were put into place to protect the minority from arbitrary and capricious actions of the majority.

Carby still hasn't figured out that America is NOT a "democracy." In his childish ignorance, not only does he think America is a "democracy," he actually thinks it should be a "democracy."

Does your face always turn that red when you've been made a fool of, retread?

We are a democracy. We are a government of the People, which is what a democracy is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting the kind of amendments to the Constitution conservatives support, while out of the other side of their mouths they're talking about rights:

1. an amendment to take away an individual's right to vote for his senators.

2. an amendment to take away a woman's right to an abortion.

3. an amendment to take away an individual's right to legally marry someone of the same sex.

I'm just curious, are there any amendments to the Constitution that conservatives support that would expand individual rights,

as opposed to taking them away?

Our Constitution was not built solely on individual rights. It was also built on states rights, a part which people like you obstinately refuse to acknowledge. It is a bizarre blind spot.

It is a simple fact the 17th amendment greatly eroded states rights. Yet you do not have a problem with that.

You seem to think that states' rights are supposed to exist without the will of the People within the various states.

That is retarded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting the kind of amendments to the Constitution conservatives support, while out of the other side of their mouths they're talking about rights:

1. an amendment to take away an individual's right to vote for his senators.

2. an amendment to take away a woman's right to an abortion.

3. an amendment to take away an individual's right to legally marry someone of the same sex.

I'm just curious, are there any amendments to the Constitution that conservatives support that would expand individual rights,

as opposed to taking them away?

Our Constitution was not built solely on individual rights. It was also built on states rights, a part which people like you obstinately refuse to acknowledge. It is a bizarre blind spot.

It is a simple fact the 17th amendment greatly eroded states rights. Yet you do not have a problem with that.

The 13th amendment REALLY eroded states' rights. You seem to have a real problem with that.

Racist.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

This idiot who's been babbling on and on about tyranny of the majority -

when the issue changes -

is now complaining about tyranny of the minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, that was worth the effort to drag out of him lolololol

MORE proof that the always dull-witted, vapid moron, Carby, cannot keep up with a conversation AND that he doesn't have the first CLUE about what the word "tyranny" even means.

The Constitution was DESIGNED to avoid the evil of the prospect of a majority tyrannizing a minority. That's the first basic premise that Carby has no hope of ever comprehending.

But in his infantile "analysis," he imagines that the way to protect the right of the majority to have "democracy" is to forbid the very checks and balances that were put into place to protect the minority from arbitrary and capricious actions of the majority.

Carby still hasn't figured out that America is NOT a "democracy." In his childish ignorance, not only does he think America is a "democracy," he actually thinks it should be a "democracy."

Does your face always turn that red when you've been made a fool of, retread?

We are a democracy. We are a government of the People, which is what a democracy is.

Your face would ignite a wet blanket if that's the measure, Carby.

You are not only wrong, but embarrassingly wrong and now compelled to lie about it all, outright.

We are absolutely and unequivocally NOT a "democracy."
That's actually very good news.

WE the people are sovereign, but we BOUND ourselves in order to bind the power and authority of government and to prevent a tyranny of a majority.

This isn't a new concept. This is all old stuff. It has been well known throughout the HISTORY of our Republic. Yet, somehow, it has escaped your notice. I find that hysterically funny. No wonder you have to be so embarrassed. You deserve to feel fully humiliated. You've earned it.



You have no capacity to make a fool out of me. You are too busy, full-time, making a fool of yourself. And you have gotten very good at it. Clearly.

By the way, a government "of" the PEOPLE is NOT what a democracy is. Words have meaning, Carbuncle. Try being honest. If all else fails (as it has in your case) you could maybe look some shit up. It's not all that hard. Don't be afraid.

Properly defined, a "democracy" is

government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

-- Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary [Emphasis added.]

Ours IS a government OF the People, but because we live under the CONSTRAINTS of the Constitution, it is not a government BY the People. It is not even a purely indirect democracy since even those whom we choose to "represent" us cannot validly create laws which conflict with the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

I wonder why guys like you rebel so hard against these VERY BASIC and accurate premises?



Not really. I know EXACTLY why you cringe.

And I applaud the fact that it makes you whimper so very pathetically.

 

[Flopper]

The basic assumption in repealing the 17th amendment is that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens which is bizarre at best for a nation that expounds democracy throughout the world.

 

[JimBowie1958]

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

This idiot who's been babbling on and on about tyranny of the majority -

when the issue changes -

is now complaining about tyranny of the minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, that was worth the effort to drag out of him lolololol

MORE proof that the always dull-witted, vapid moron, Carby, cannot keep up with a conversation AND that he doesn't have the first CLUE about what the word "tyranny" even means.

The Constitution was DESIGNED to avoid the evil of the prospect of a majority tyrannizing a minority. That's the first basic premise that Carby has no hope of ever comprehending.

But in his infantile "analysis," he imagines that the way to protect the right of the majority to have "democracy" is to forbid the very checks and balances that were put into place to protect the minority from arbitrary and capricious actions of the majority.

Carby still hasn't figured out that America is NOT a "democracy." In his childish ignorance, not only does he think America is a "democracy," he actually thinks it should be a "democracy."

Does your face always turn that red when you've been made a fool of, retread?

We are a democracy. We are a government of the People, which is what a democracy is.

Lol, we are NOT a democracy, doofus. We are a Republic some of whose top officers and representatives are chosen by a democratic process.

The Founding Fathers were totally opposed to implementing a Democracy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The basic assumption in repealing the 17th amendment is that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens which is bizarre at best for a nation that expounds democracy throughout the world.

Not at all bizarre since we have now got a huge percentage of the public that falls into the category of 'Obama phone, low info' voters. These cretins are easily persuaded by even the most simplistic advertising if seen frequently enough.

Hell, the simpler the better it works on them.

Which is why this was never and shall never be a democracy.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_US_not_a_true_democracy

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The basic assumption in repealing the 17th amendment is that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens which is bizarre at best for a nation that expounds democracy throughout the world.

Except, of course, that is most assuredly NOT the "basic assumption."

The basic assumption of the proposed repeal of the 17th Amendment is that it would get us BACK to the state we were in prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment. And that had nothing to do with creating some better representation of the state's people in the U.S. Senate.

Instead, the Senate was supposed to be reflective of the STATE representation as a component part OF the Senate. A body of two Senators PER state, not dependent at all on population size or comparative size. It was an embodiment of the STATE authority in our Constitutional federal Republic. Surely that notion has noting to do with anything approximating one man one vote.

Making the election of Senators a matter of direct elections made the Senate WEAKER in terms of federalism. The overall interest of the STATES, AS States, would be better served by having the STATES, not the people of the States, choosing who represents the STATES in the U.S. Senate.

 

[bendog]

People can't really be trusted to vote for their own best interests. Republican govt is the best govt around unless its not Republican.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 13th amendment REALLY eroded states' rights. You seem to have a real problem with that.

Racist.

"Racist" is like holy water to you fucktards - no matter the subject, if you're getting your ass handed to you, call your opponent a racist.

Here is something you simply cannot grasp...

Individual Rights > Community Rights > States Right > Federal Rights.

Our nation was designed so that all authority is derived by consent of the individual, bottom up government.

You of the left work to return to the classical situation where men are ruled from the top - where the king has all power and cedes a small amount to his stooges to do his bidding. The stooges bequeath a small portion to their minions to act on their behalf, and so forth.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, et al, set the whole thing on it's ear by devising a system where authority rests with the individual and flows up, in limited portion.

Those like you, have worked ever since to restore the top down rule that you advocate here.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The 13th amendment REALLY eroded states' rights. You seem to have a real problem with that.

Racist.

"Racist" is like holy water to you fucktards - no matter the subject, if you're getting your ass handed to you, call your opponent a racist.

Here is something you simply cannot grasp...

Individual Rights > Community Rights > States Right > Federal Rights.

Our nation was designed so that all authority is derived by consent of the individual, bottom up government.

You of the left work to return to the classical situation where men are ruled from the top - where the king has all power and cedes a small amount to his stooges to do his bidding. The stooges bequeath a small portion to their minions to act on their behalf, and so forth.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, et al, set the whole thing on it's ear by devising a system where authority rests with the individual and flows up, in limited portion.

Those like you, have worked ever since to restore the top down rule that you advocate here.

^

 

[FA_Q2]

The 13th amendment REALLY eroded states' rights. You seem to have a real problem with that.

Racist.

"Racist" is like holy water to you fucktards - no matter the subject, if you're getting your ass handed to you, call your opponent a racist.

Here is something you simply cannot grasp...

Individual Rights > Community Rights > States Right > Federal Rights.

Our nation was designed so that all authority is derived by consent of the individual, bottom up government.

You of the left work to return to the classical situation where men are ruled from the top - where the king has all power and cedes a small amount to his stooges to do his bidding. The stooges bequeath a small portion to their minions to act on their behalf, and so forth.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, et al, set the whole thing on it's ear by devising a system where authority rests with the individual and flows up, in limited portion.

Those like you, have worked ever since to restore the top down rule that you advocate here.

Therein lies the liberals problem. They really do think that is how government should work – all the power on top with some ceded all the way down until you get to the individual that ends up holding the least amount of freedom possible.

 

[FA_Q2]

[


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

.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

This idiot who's been babbling on and on about tyranny of the majority -

when the issue changes -

is now complaining about tyranny of the minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, that was worth the effort to drag out of him lolololol

You are proving that you have no concept of what tyranny is.

Let me give you a hint: it can come from more than one source, be it majority, minority, authorities or from your neighbors.