The Lawlessness and Legal Ambiguity caused by Progressivism

[Intense]

Conservatives profess to abhor Mob Rule?

But conservatives for 3 years have been ranting about the Affordable Care Act having been passed against the will of the People,

and have cited poll after poll insisting that more Americans were opposed to the law than supported it.

So, if we had Mob Rule, in the form of some sort of referendum on passing such a law,

then the anti-mob conservatives would be happy?

lol.

lol

*Ouch*

That's what you choos to use as an example? You are pissing into a strong headwind. Take a bath.

If this Law is an example of anything, it's an example of everything wrong with the system. Let's pass it so we can find out what's in it. When you are done exempting your friends and relatives, look at what you dumped on the rest of us? If it was so good, why impose new standards that were never imposed before? If it was just a matter of corruption, why does the fix multiply the corruption and the imposition on the rest of us? You are both a joke, not capable of thinking for yourselves. To do that, must scare the hell out of you.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I already replied.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8231302-post142.html

That reply didn't address a single topic that I wrote about. I colored all of the separate themes. I colored one of your responses blue, since it sort of addressed my first theme. You seem to believe that Senate seats are now immune to "being bought," I beg to differ, that they are bought much easier now than they were before.

The very FACT that you illustrated, showing how Delaware (and many other States) went without Senators for years, demonstrates how DIFFICULT it was to buy off a Senate seat and the entire state legislature. You provided the ULTIMATE counter example to your claim.

That's the problem with Progressives (at least the heartfelt ones), they actually THINK they can SOLVE corruption.

Corruption is the very nature of Government. The Constitution and the procedures within it are meant to limit and disperse the concentration of the corruption amongst factions.

When the Founders choose the State Legislatures as the body to appoint Senators, they KNEW that localized corruption and local factions (local/state corporations and other monied interests) would be dominant in the selection process. However, this method LIMITED it to interests WITHIN the STATE only. This insured that State itself benefited from their choice.

This also gave the States a direct way to counter the encroachment of the Federal Government, because they would JEALOUSLY guard THEIR POWERS. Many of the best and most outstanding arguments AGAINST nullification were DEPENDENT upon this method of choosing Senators. The idea being that the States could recall their Senators and replace them with new ones in order to block an overbearing Federal Government. Notice how small the federal government was BEFORE the 16th and 17th Amendments (both passed in 1913). Ever since the 17th Amendment was passed, all of the strong arguments against Nullification have evaporated; thus, in some sense, the 17th Amendment LEGALIZED Nullification in order to PEACEFULLY enforce the 10th Amendment; because now the States have NO other PEACEFUL method to enforce the 10th Amendment.

(back to the previous paragraph) With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the LIMITATION keeping this corruption WITHIN the State was eliminated. Now Senators were beholden to NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL interest groups. This makes them LESS ACCOUNTABLE to the People of the Several States.

-----------------------------------------

Also, riddle this:

Since there already existed a Popular House (House of Reps), if the People choose wrongly in the House, what makes you think they would choose correctly for the Senate during the same election cycle? Notice how the Senate, even now, is staggered in 6 year terms, just to make sure the People didn't devour themselves in a single election cycle.

So the riddle:

"If one House is Elected by the People, why should there exist another House that is also elected by the People?"

YOUR REPLY​

Of course there's corruption, and the potential for corruption, as with all elected people, but at least you don't have folks outright buying legislatures like was done back then. They are forced to take their case to the people every six years as to why they should be elected/reelected.

The reason there was widespread support for the 17th was because the old system just wasn't working. Not to mention the many states that were deadlocked - thus depriving whole states from representation for a period of time.

Take note: "Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states." In Delaware, for four straight years ---> No senator at all.

This abolish the 17th Amendment bullshit is just ridiculous.

Just try taking away the people's right to vote for representation. Just try it.

It's a joke to think that could ever gain any real traction.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Corruption is in the very nature of people. It's not limited to the Federal Government, or government at all.

State Governments and the "private sector" are just as "corrupt", if not more so.

 

[paperview]

I already replied.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8231302-post142.html

That reply didn't address a single topic that I wrote about. I colored all of the separate themes. I colored one of your responses blue, since it sort of addressed my first theme. You seem to believe that Senate seats are now immune to "being bought," I beg to differ, that they are bought much easier now than they were before.

The very FACT that you illustrated, showing how Delaware (and many other States) went without Senators for years, demonstrates how DIFFICULT it was to buy off a Senate seat and the entire state legislature. You provided the ULTIMATE counter example to your claim.

That's the problem with Progressives (at least the heartfelt ones), they actually THINK they can SOLVE corruption.

Corruption is the very nature of Government. The Constitution and the procedures within it are meant to limit and disperse the concentration of the corruption amongst factions.

When the Founders choose the State Legislatures as the body to appoint Senators, they KNEW that localized corruption and local factions (local/state corporations and other monied interests) would be dominant in the selection process. However, this method LIMITED it to interests WITHIN the STATE only. This insured that State itself benefited from their choice.

This also gave the States a direct way to counter the encroachment of the Federal Government, because they would JEALOUSLY guard THEIR POWERS. Many of the best and most outstanding arguments AGAINST nullification were DEPENDENT upon this method of choosing Senators. The idea being that the States could recall their Senators and replace them with new ones in order to block an overbearing Federal Government. Notice how small the federal government was BEFORE the 16th and 17th Amendments (both passed in 1913). Ever since the 17th Amendment was passed, all of the strong arguments against Nullification have evaporated; thus, in some sense, the 17th Amendment LEGALIZED Nullification in order to PEACEFULLY enforce the 10th Amendment; because now the States have NO other PEACEFUL method to enforce the 10th Amendment.

(back to the previous paragraph) With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the LIMITATION keeping this corruption WITHIN the State was eliminated. Now Senators were beholden to NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL interest groups. This makes them LESS ACCOUNTABLE to the People of the Several States.

-----------------------------------------

Also, riddle this:

Since there already existed a Popular House (House of Reps), if the People choose wrongly in the House, what makes you think they would choose correctly for the Senate during the same election cycle? Notice how the Senate, even now, is staggered in 6 year terms, just to make sure the People didn't devour themselves in a single election cycle.

So the riddle:

"If one House is Elected by the People, why should there exist another House that is also elected by the People?"

YOUR REPLY​

Of course there's corruption, and the potential for corruption, as with all elected people, but at least you don't have folks outright buying legislatures like was done back then. They are forced to take their case to the people every six years as to why they should be elected/reelected.

The reason there was widespread support for the 17th was because the old system just wasn't working. Not to mention the many states that were deadlocked - thus depriving whole states from representation for a period of time.

Take note: "Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states." In Delaware, for four straight years ---> No senator at all.

This abolish the 17th Amendment bullshit is just ridiculous.

Just try taking away the people's right to vote for representation. Just try it.

It's a joke to think that could ever gain any real traction.

I covered the balance of your idiotic post with this:

This abolish the 17th Amendment bullshit is just ridiculous.

Just try taking away the people's right to vote for representation. Just try it.

It's a joke to think that could ever gain any real traction.

You and your compadres will NEVER -- I repeat NEVER repeal the 17th Amendment, so take your pipe dreams of removing the right of the people to elect Senators and stuff it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I already replied.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8231302-post142.html

That reply didn't address a single topic that I wrote about. I colored all of the separate themes. I colored one of your responses blue, since it sort of addressed my first theme. You seem to believe that Senate seats are now immune to "being bought," I beg to differ, that they are bought much easier now than they were before.

The very FACT that you illustrated, showing how Delaware (and many other States) went without Senators for years, demonstrates how DIFFICULT it was to buy off a Senate seat and the entire state legislature. You provided the ULTIMATE counter example to your claim.

YOUR REPLY​

Of course there's corruption, and the potential for corruption, as with all elected people, but at least you don't have folks outright buying legislatures like was done back then. They are forced to take their case to the people every six years as to why they should be elected/reelected.

The reason there was widespread support for the 17th was because the old system just wasn't working. Not to mention the many states that were deadlocked - thus depriving whole states from representation for a period of time.

Take note: "Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states." In Delaware, for four straight years ---> No senator at all.

This abolish the 17th Amendment bullshit is just ridiculous.

Just try taking away the people's right to vote for representation. Just try it.

It's a joke to think that could ever gain any real traction.

I covered the balance of your idiotic post with this:

This abolish the 17th Amendment bullshit is just ridiculous.

Just try taking away the people's right to vote for representation. Just try it.

It's a joke to think that could ever gain any real traction.

You and your compadres will NEVER -- I repeat NEVER repeal the 17th Amendment, so take your pipe dreams of removing the right of the people to elect Senators and stuff it.

What if there was an Amendment to create a THIRD HOUSE that was chosen by the State Legislature?

Now address all of my other themes that I colored for you convenience.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Corruption is in the very nature of people. It's not limited to the Federal Government, or government at all.

State Governments and the "private sector" are just as "corrupt", if not more so.

Wow, you're not braindead.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Corruption is in the very nature of people. It's not limited to the Federal Government, or government at all.

State Governments and the "private sector" are just as "corrupt", if not more so.

Wow, you're not braindead.

So how is local corruption any better that national corruption?

I would make the argument that the opposite is true.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Corruption is in the very nature of people. It's not limited to the Federal Government, or government at all.

State Governments and the "private sector" are just as "corrupt", if not more so.

Wow, you're not braindead.

So how is local corruption any better that national corruption?

I would make the argument that the opposite is true.

Because local corruption is accountable to the local population.

When the House of Reps was capped at 435, National Corruption could no longer be checked by either the local populations (via the House) or the State (via the Senate).

--------------------------------------
Why have local government at all, since you believe the National Government knows best for all local populations under its jurisdiction?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wow, you're not braindead.

So how is local corruption any better that national corruption?

I would make the argument that the opposite is true.

Because local corruption is accountable to the local population.

Why have local government at all?

I know you live in the great state of New York, and I think I've told you that I spent 6 years working full time in New York state politics. The level of corruption that exists on the state level puts any federal corruption to shame.

Do you really want your representative in the Senate to be chosen by Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wow, you're not braindead.

So how is local corruption any better that national corruption?

I would make the argument that the opposite is true.

Because local corruption is accountable to the local population.

When the House of Reps was capped at 435, National Corruption could no longer be checked by either the local populations (via the House) or the State (via the Senate).

--------------------------------------
Why have local government at all, since you believe the National Government knows best for all local populations under its jurisdiction?

Nice edit.

 

[paperview]

That reply didn't address a single topic that I wrote about. I colored all of the separate themes. I colored one of your responses blue, since it sort of addressed my first theme. You seem to believe that Senate seats are now immune to "being bought," I beg to differ, that they are bought much easier now than they were before.

The very FACT that you illustrated, showing how Delaware (and many other States) went without Senators for years, demonstrates how DIFFICULT it was to buy off a Senate seat and the entire state legislature. You provided the ULTIMATE counter example to your claim.

YOUR REPLY​

I covered the balance of your idiotic post with this:

This abolish the 17th Amendment bullshit is just ridiculous.

Just try taking away the people's right to vote for representation. Just try it.

It's a joke to think that could ever gain any real traction.

You and your compadres will NEVER -- I repeat NEVER repeal the 17th Amendment, so take your pipe dreams of removing the right of the people to elect Senators and stuff it.

What if there was an Amendment to create a THIRD HOUSE that was chosen by the State Legislature?

Now address all of my other themes that I colored for you convenience.

No.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So how is local corruption any better that national corruption?

I would make the argument that the opposite is true.

Because local corruption is accountable to the local population.

When the House of Reps was capped at 435, National Corruption could no longer be checked by either the local populations (via the House) or the State (via the Senate).

--------------------------------------
Why have local government at all, since you believe the National Government knows best for all local populations under its jurisdiction?

Nice edit.

You now that I update my posts. I also didn't omit anything from the original version.

Would you prefer that I make a new post so you can ban me for some frivolous rule?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I covered the balance of your idiotic post with this:

This abolish the 17th Amendment bullshit is just ridiculous.

Just try taking away the people's right to vote for representation. Just try it.

It's a joke to think that could ever gain any real traction.

You and your compadres will NEVER -- I repeat NEVER repeal the 17th Amendment, so take your pipe dreams of removing the right of the people to elect Senators and stuff it.

What if there was an Amendment to create a THIRD HOUSE that was chosen by the State Legislature?

Now address all of my other themes that I colored for you convenience.

No.

Spoken like a true Liberal.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Because local corruption is accountable to the local population.

When the House of Reps was capped at 435, National Corruption could no longer be checked by either the local populations (via the House) or the State (via the Senate).

--------------------------------------
Why have local government at all, since you believe the National Government knows best for all local populations under its jurisdiction?

Nice edit.

You now that I update my posts. I also didn't omit anything from the original version.

Would you prefer that I make a new post so you can ban me for some frivolous rule?

I just think its pretty funny that you thought adding some personal attacks to your argument would make it better.

I notice you didn't respond to my substantive post.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What if there was an Amendment to create a THIRD HOUSE that was chosen by the State Legislature?

Now address all of my other themes that I colored for you convenience.

No.

Spoken like a true Liberal.

Actually spoken like someone who understands there’s no point in arguing with an idiot.