General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence
". . .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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Source(s):
Declaration of Independence, 1776.
Game on!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)We have constitutional options to prevent a descent into fascism or socialism, IF the nation chooses to remain a United States of America.
If not, I'm glad to be living in California which will fight and resist federal intrusion.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)One might think that Democrats might actually want to define what democratic principles are. But if they did, they'd immediately confront the fact that they support an antidemocratic system. So when push comes to shove... they'd rather be victimized in a defective system than challenge it and demand reforms.
brush
(53,784 posts)39 Million people.
elleng
(130,963 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)elleng
(130,963 posts)Dunno, but could be combos with Senators Sanders, Warren, Schumer, Reps Ellison, Jamie Raskin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Raskin) and others. 
Let's consult!
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)What do you think has changed?
onenote
(42,714 posts)Texas v. White, 1868.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)One can always tell a forced decision by its tortured logic. Texas v White is one such decision... so is Heller which bastardized the Second Amendment.
onenote
(42,714 posts)is 'tortured" according to those who disagreed with it.
But you're right, criticism of Texas v. White picked up in recent years -- amongst the Tea Partiers.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The "logic" is tortured because there was a determination to come to a conclusion. When Scalia was asked about secession he didn't even mention it. He said the Civil War proved it was settled.
onenote
(42,714 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)according to the losing side. For decades the right wing has claimed that the decisions recognizing a right to abortion (and those that preceded it with respect to contraception) were "tortured." I don't care if they were or weren't. Until they are overturned, they stand. And Texas v. White stands.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I've often found many liberal Dems to have a certain contempt for democratic principles.
onenote
(42,714 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I, on the other hand, can't abandon democratic principles as the basis for morally legitimate government.
Sorry.
Do enjoy the next four years of the Trump Junta.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So the legal matter of secession was left unresolved after the Civil War... and it only came up incidentally in an 1969 case whether the secessionist government of TX had the authority to sell US bonds?
Of course if an amendment were proposed making secession illegal, it would have admitted it had been legal... and Lincoln's war was not. Can't do that.
I know you have some slavish belief in rulings even if they contradict the Constitution. Sorry, Texas v White settled nothing. The Constitution is clear on nullification... not secession.
onenote
(42,714 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Decided Dec 1, 1868.
At least according to http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/74/700.html
I know you'd want to correct that.
Now are you through being petty?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Now are you through being petty?"
After reading the thread, I can only imagine there's a particular level of irony in you posing that question.
onenote
(42,714 posts)to a modern case.
And the accepted citation is to 1869, not 1868,based on reports indicating the case was argued in February 1869 and the decision was handed down in April 1869.
Okay, maybe that last correction was a bit petty.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Why are you evading this question?
Yupster
(14,308 posts)He was indicted and imprisoned for treason.
He got a high powered group of northern lawyers to defend him.
His defense was the Constitution is silent on the subject.
The Tenth Amendment says anything not given as a power to the federal government belongs to the states by default.
Therefore he demanded his right to an open and speedy trial so he could begin the task of rebuilding his unhappy land.
He never got his trial. For the rest of his life he was left indicted without trial which is a pretty crappy thing to do to someone. Call someone a child molester. Then never put him on trial. Just call him a child molester for the rest of his life.
brush
(53,784 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)were about 99 % of the white people in America in 1860.
brush
(53,784 posts)And even some of the founding fathers were against it.
John Adams: "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…. I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in …abhorrence."
—Letter to Evans, June 8, 1819, in Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams ed. Adrienne Koch et al. (New York: Knopf, 1946), 209-10.
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/five-founders-on-slavery.html
Don't understand at all why you would defend it.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)were white supremacists. Hell, Lincoln was a white supremacist.
The study of history has something called the "Sin of Presentism" in which you judge people of the past by the standards of the present. The idea is that if 99 % of the people thought a certain way in the past, you can't condemn them for just being part of the prevailing thought. Who knows what will be condemned 100 years from now that we all believe in.
Saying 99 % of white Americans in 1860 believed in white supremacy does not make me pro-slavery. It just makes me an old history teacher and textbook author.
brush
(53,784 posts)the rest of them now.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)How did they feel about it or abolitionists or radical republicans who wanted to go much further than Lincoln? You can find people back then who pointed out that it was wrong so it doesn't make sense to judge it as OK since it was OK at the time but they were part of the problem.
I'm not sure though on white supremacy as much of a thing back then, probably with the KKK and their supporters but it seems like after Hitler they are probably more people today with white supremacy ideology though I don't understand how people fall for Nazi propaganda after all these years.
treestar
(82,383 posts)way they did it - military fight. But how feasible that is now is another thing.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)They sure found out they were wrong after a quarter of the adult white men in the south were dead.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)and Constitutionally I believed the Confederates were right.
It's also a matter of common sense to me. If you join any group and the group changes dramatically from when you join it, how can you not have the right to unjoin it? It doesn't make common sense to me, other than the Mafia I guess.
There was a Supreme Court ruling expost-facto in 1866 declariing secession illegal.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The decision you're referring to is Texas v White and it really wasn't about secession but bonds. It tries to prove through it's own logic that secession was illegal. It's a tortured decision borrowing from the Articles' claim to be a perpetual union... even if the Articles were nullified and the Constitution says nothing about a perpetual union.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/74/700.html
One might think that Congress could have passed an amendment on the topic... but if it did, it would have implied secession had been legal and the war beyond reclaiming federal property was not.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Madison wanted to modify the Preamble to add
First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.
That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
It was defeated. Antidemocratic government struck its first blow.
http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html#Sec3
msongs
(67,413 posts)suston96
(4,175 posts)It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.
Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)
0rganism
(23,955 posts)"...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
every person who signed that document was saying he was ready to put his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness on the line for any of the other signers. are we there yet?
ffr
(22,670 posts)Then, the people will say 'oh please, oh please, Democrats put our house back in order.' We'll put the house back in order and they'll say, 'fuck you, libtard! Make Murica Greet Gin!' and vote to put the KGOP back. And repeat.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
handmade34
(22,756 posts)need to do something because all has become madness (for those paying attention) our election process is failing us (U.S.)
just read NYT article about Jared Kushner and all business dealing he has around the world (especially China and Russia)... this man will be one of the big players in the White House in 2 weeks
But the money behind many of Mr. Kushner’s real-estate investments remains a mystery. While the company lists dozens of partners on its website, it does not disclose the individuals behind those companies....One of the newest Kushner projects — a Trump-branded luxury apartment tower that opened in November in Jersey City — got nearly a quarter of its financing, about $50 million, from Chinese investors who are not publicly identified.
The investors are beneficiaries of a federal program that grants two-year visas and a path to permanent residency in exchange for investments of $500,000. The program, known as EB-5, has become popular with real estate developers as a cheap form of financing..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/us/politics/jared-kushner-trump-business.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
badhair77
(4,218 posts)Joy Reid addressed it this morning but it needs more attention. This guy could well be as entangled in corruption as his FIL. Thanks for posting the link. It's a long article but worth the time to read it.
sl8
(13,786 posts)...
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
Are you suggesting that we have already suffered a long train of abuses and usurpations, or is it more that you suspect they might lie ahead?
roamer65
(36,745 posts)It may be the only way to keep it together. Regional differences may now be too great to support federation.
1789-1861 was a confederation, not a federation. The United States did not become a true federation until the surrender of the CSA at Appomattox, April 9, 1865.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)2naSalit
(86,646 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Derp.
Response to X_Digger (Reply #15)
Post removed
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Anyone proposing secession as you did in post #20 is either intentionally ignoring history, or hasn't really considered the likely outcome.
Neither position gives me confidence.
brush
(53,784 posts)presidential elections. Thanks to the Electoral College, that racist relic from slavery that we still use to select our president, voters in a small state like Wyoming with less than 700k people have 4 times more weight than the 39 million Californians' votes.
California has the 6th largest economy in the world, that's right, in the world.
It supplies much of the rest of the US with food from its agriculture, has its own financial exchanges, ports, manufacturing — it could stand on its own.
Hell, how many times have we heard recently that if we just cut out California's votes, trump would have won the popular vote?
I wouldn't blame California, if there is no willingness from the Federal government to at least adjust and equalize the EC vote weighting, to consider making a case for independence.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)One wonders whether Lincoln's war was legal. True, the federal government had a right to respond to the attack on Sumter... but I can not find anything in the Constitution that actually prohibits secession. It's not something I desire but given the reformproof nature of our system... I'd support a state like CA threatening secession if democratic reforms aren't made to the system.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)No, the system isn't "reformproof"-- you just don't like the prospect of having to convince enough people to make reform happen. If reform is important, then you have to do the work to convince enough people to agree. It's hard work. Don't feel up to that challenge? Well tough shit.
Wanting to change the system because your ideas can't compete? That sounds like millenial thinking-- there is no participation trophy for failure, a parent can't complain and get the rules changed just because it's harder work than you were expecting.
I remember your "california threaten secession" thread-- if I recall, it didn't go as you planned.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028380818 (for the inevitable jury)
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sorry, for all intents and purposes the Constitution IS reformproof because the formula gives tiny minorities the ability to obstruct all but the most banal reforms. The proof is not ONE of the core antidemocratic features has ever been reformed in 225 years. But by your "logic", such as it is... even the Articles which required unanimous consent to reform were reformable. Odd how the Philadelphia Convention wrote off what was stated to be a perpetual union.
XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
As for the CA Secession thread... it went just fine. I don't expect liberal Dems to ever confront their core contradiction that they claim a monopoly on democracy yet can't muster an intellectual challenge to a grotesquely antidemocratic system no matter how many times they are screwed by it.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It's intended to be.
Want to change the rules? Tough shit, same process. You don't get to 'take my toys and go home'.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sorry, I'm not a slavish adherent to the politics of 1787 or our antidemocratic system.
But you're free to be.
I prefer to believe that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed.
And you're free not to believe that. Just don't pretend your arguments have any moral weight.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I don't want our system of government to change on a whim, or when 50.001% of the people say so, no.
What do you think that reproductive rights would look like if all it took was 50.001% of a set of voters to deny them?
What do you think the fourth amendment would look like if 50.001% was all it took to abolish it in the days after 9/11?
No, people are fickle and easily swayed in the heat of the moment. You might want a mobocracy, but I sure as fuck don't.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Why is it so many liberal Dems can't have a rational discussion about the defects in our system?
Who the f*ck has EVER suggested we pass amendments with a 50% +1 vote?
My position has always been that PEOPLE vote on amendments... by a supermajority over two presidential election cycles.
But if you believe that amendments should pass with states with as little as 40% of the population... which means it might only be approved by 20%+1 then feel free to explain to the class about how YOU are against "mobcracy".
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You're the one whining that changing the constitution is hard. "reformproof" my ass.
What happens when you make it easier? Political expediency leads to whipping up just enough votes to get something passed quickly.
I believe that we are a representative republic, a union of states, reflected in the duality of our government systems- balances between populism and states. e.g., the senate compared to the house, or the apportionment of electors to the electoral college.
If our constitution were "reformproof" we wouldn't be up to the 28th amendment.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Are you still clinging to your ridiclous 50%+1 argument? Of course you are because you're now stuck in a position of whining that amendments must be difficult to pass... something I agree with, but you're stuck with the fact that states with just 40% of the population could ratify one... and it would only take states with 30% of the population to pass the Senate. The House might pose a problem... but is that your hope for making an amendment difficult to pass?
Sorry... it's an illusion to hold states have a will to express. Only PEOPLE have will. Therefore I'm for a PEOPLE voting on amendments and since reading comprehension seems to be a problem I've already admitted THIS PROCESS SHOULD BE HARD.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Until you go start your own floating island nation, or convince 3/4 of the states to pass an amendment granting you plenipotentiary power, you're stuck.
We are a representative republic, not a direct democracy. Wishing, hoping, stomping your feet, and trying to whine and threaten to take your toys and go play elsewhere won't change it. We are a union of states. (It's right there in the name.)
I can recommend a few books on the subject of enlightenment philosophy or early constitutional jurisprudence, but I fear it would fall on deaf ears.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Leaving aside the fact that there are only TWENTY SEVEN amendments... not 28... here's the breakdown I did a few years back
INDIVIDUAL & STATES RIGHTS: 1-10 plus 13th, 14th
FINE TUNING THE CONSTITUTION: 11th, 12th, 16th, 20th, 22ed, 25th, 27th
PROHIBITION & REPEAL: 18th, 21st
EXPANDING VOTING RIGHTS: 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th
MAKING THE CONSTITUTION MORE DEMOCRATIC: 17th, 23ed
The first ten amendments, aka The Bill Of Rights, were demanded by the states as the price of ratification. So that leaves 17 amendments over 223 years or one amendment every 13 years.
If we take away the 7 that I've put into the "FINE TUNING" category that leaves 10 amendments over 223 years or one, on average, every 22.3 years. These amendments cover things like presidential terms etc.
Take away Prohibition and its repeal... that leaves 8 amendments over 223 years giving us one amendment averaging about every 28 years.
That leaves 6 amendments that in some way make the Constitution more "democratic"... that gives us one amendment every 36 years. These amendments fall into two categories.
The first category is expanding the vote to groups who arguably should NEVER have been denied it: slaves (15th), women (19th), those who can't afford a poll tax (24th) and 18 year olds (26th).
The second category deals with some aspect of the antidemocratic structure of the Constitution itself. Here we have but TWO amendments... giving us ONE reform amendment, on average, every 111 years. Those reforms were allowing direct vote for the Senate... and giving EC votes to those in Washington DC. Given how antidemocratic the Constitution is, those reforms are minor tweaks.
The sad reality is NONE of those 27 amendments to date have reformed ANY of the core antidemocratic features of the Constitution all of which are connected with the antidemocratic concept of state suffrage... the EC, the Senate, the exclusive powers of the Senate to ratify judicial nominees or treaties, the amendment process, etc.
That's ZERO serious reform amendments in 223 years!
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Yeah, you don't call something "reformproof" just because the reforms aren't something that you give a shit about.
Feel free to call them "eniwetok©-reformproof" though. You can have your own term, you don't get to change the meaning of the real one.
I'm sure women consider the 19th "not serious reform". My AA neighbor feels the same about the 15th.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You're correct, I usually use the term virtually reformproof. I might have been careless in this discussion.
That being said, so in your mind if women are finally allowed to vote, something that should never have been prohibited in the first place and it does NOTHING to change the antidemocratic nature of the system... that's "proof" the system's antidemocratic features CAN be reformed?
Sorry, I don't share your obviously slavish belief that there are no serious defects with our system. But thanks for proving that too many Dems care more about the Civic Religion and buy into their own disenfranchisement and care not about the concept of morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed.
It comes as no surprise. Even liberal Dems have an ultra conservative side in this regard.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)No, you're complaining that you don't want to have to convince 3/4 of states to pass your silly amendment. Waaah, that's hard, so let's threaten to secede. Not actually secede, mind you, just threaten.
That's not fully developed thinking. It ignores the history of such actions and the likely consequences of such proposals.
It has nothing to do with 'ultra conservative' or 'liberal'.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm not the one who believes amendments should be difficult to pass then approves of a formula that can allow states with just 40% of the population... and maybe with only half of that 40% approving, to ratify any amendment.
And you say my thinking isn't developed?
As for secession... OF COURSE CA would have to go through with the threat if its demands were not met. This was explained in that thread. But it seems you're determined to play dumb, refusing to acknowledge there's INTENT behind the threat... and it's not to secede as the South did... but to leverage the threat to improve the system.
But then you don't have any problems with an antidemocratic system that makes a mockery of the concept of self government because you're willing to sacrifice democratic values and common sense for the dysfunctional politics of 1787.
How goddamn noble. Enjoy the Trump years.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Which is it, is it too easy, or is it too hard? You can't have it both ways.
3/4 of the states must approve. That's a pretty high bar. And rightly so. It's quite a democratic process, involving every state in the union, their governors, respective state legislative bodies, and citizens.
You know what you call a threat you don't intend to actually go through with? Whining.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)And you don't even know that democracy is INCOMPATIBLE with state suffrage? State suffrage IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Demos = PEOPLE not artificial entities called states.
And sorry sport, I have no contradictions. You do. When amendments are held hostage to state suffrage instead of a democratic vote there's no way to predict what percentage of the population are in the states that ratify. IT FALLS IN A RANGE... with states with as little as 40% of the US population to states with 96% depending on how the states vote. This is insanity. The ONLY way to insure states with 4% of population can't block with 96% want... or that 40% of the population can't ratify what 60% want IS A POPULAR VOTE... and at that point it doesn't matter where someone chooses to live. The reason the system is reformproof where state suffrage is concerned IS BECAUSE THE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT SLAVERY AND THIS NOW GIVES SMALL STATES A VETO OVER REFORM.
But thanks for proving that even some liberal Dems can't break free of whatever apologetics they learned in 4th grade US history.
Feel free to post on the topic again when you learn some basic democratic concepts and learn some basic math.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)We are a representative republic. A union of individual state governments.
Don Quixote, you've got some bigger windmills to tilt at, if you're trying to overturn a fundamental aspect of our government.
Lol, I didn't realize just how far you were out on that limb. Feel free to have the last word, I don't play with people espousing fringe ideas.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)That our founding principle was that PEOPLE were the sovereigns... and government was our servant. You want to negate that so the the People are the victims of the politics of 1787... and the will of the dead.
Why not just come out and admit that?
So are you ever going to admit democracy is INCOMPATIBLE with state suffrage? State suffrage IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Demos = PEOPLE not artificial entities called states.
And I have to issue another EVASION ALERT since you refuse to deal with what I wrote before:
And sorry sport, I have no contradictions. You do. When amendments are held hostage to state suffrage instead of a democratic vote there's no way to predict what percentage of the population are in the states that ratify. IT FALLS IN A RANGE... with states with as little as 40% of the US population to states with 96% depending on how the states vote. This is insanity. The ONLY way to insure states with 4% of population can't block with 96% want... or that 40% of the population can't ratify what 60% want IS A POPULAR VOTE... and at that point it doesn't matter where someone chooses to live. The reason the system is reformproof where state suffrage is concerned IS BECAUSE THE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT SLAVERY AND THIS NOW GIVES SMALL STATES A VETO OVER REFORM.
But it's clear you're going to evade those points.
But thanks for proving that even some liberal Dems can't break free of whatever apologetics they learned in 4th grade US history.
Feel free to post on the topic again when you learn some basic democratic concepts and learn some basic math.
I won't hold my breath.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You want to claim we're the US... as if that ends the discussion... but it only raises deeper questions that you clearly are unprepared to discuss and rushed to a lame deflection.
The political theory upon which our nation was founded holds it's the PEOPLE who are the sovereigns... government power flows from that, and government is only morally legitimate power IF it has the consent of the governed. You want to bastardize those principles to legitimate government that does NOT have the consent of the governed and to make the People subservient to a system originally designed to give elites a veto over the People, for class warfare (Madison's opulent of the minority) and to protect slavery.
How goddamn noble... and spoken like a right winger who has contempt for democratic principles. You can't even stand up for the simple principles that every citizen has the right to vote their conscience and get some representation for their beliefs, and every citizen's vote should weigh the same. You can't even stand up for the principle that 4% of the US population should not be able to block reforms or that states with 40% should not be able to impose amendments on the nation. You can't even stand up for the principle that those representing 18% of the nation should not have a veto over anything coming out of the House. And you can't even stand up for the principle that NO ONE should ever become president after being rejected by the People in the popular vote.
Shame.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You don't get to decide what principles are democratic, no more than you get to decide the meaning of 'reformproof'. If you'd actually read up on the founders and the constitutional convention, you'd understand that they embraced the duality of our government-- a union of states comprised of people. You don't get to decide for anyone other than yourself what is or isn't morally legitimate.
But keep on whining, making empty threats- it's getting kind of silly at this point, and I'm easily amused.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Thanks for the classic delusion all apologists for our system exhibit... that if someone disagrees with our system... you believe they just can't understand it.
I DO UNDERSTAND IT... AND I REJECT ALL THE ANTIDEMOCRATIC ELEMENTS OF IT.
Catching on yet?
Didn't think so.
And given you defend ANTIDEMOCRATIC principles, you're the LAST person who should be pretending you have ANY idea of what democratic principles are. And as my analysis of the ratified amendments shows... for all intents and purposes those antidemocratic elements can NOT be reformed. And that wasn't absurd enough... demographic trends are increasingly making the system MORE antidemocratic. Where in 1790 the differential between the largest and smallest was around 16:1... it's now about 70:1.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If so, that would shed so much light on your position.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Pray tell... show us all those other western nations that hand the top executive job to someone REJECTED by the People.
I won't hold my breath. Your concepts are hopelessly confused and contradictory... which is why you evaded my questions with your latest diversion.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)5 of them almost always do (NH is a swing state). Maine split its EV's for the first time ever in 2016 (Clinton 3, Trump 1), and has voted for the Democratic nominee very time since 1988.
I can envision no possible Amendments were Hawaii, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island would all side with ONLY North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Nebraska against ALL the other 37 states. That is the only possible way your 4% block would work, so it is a bit of a red herring.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Any amendment can be ratified by states that range from roughly 40% of the US population to 96%. In reality it might be only a majority in a state... which means an amendment might be ratified with the approval of only, say 21% of the population and blocked by 2%. The ONLY way to insure there is a true super majority is with the popular vote and I'd prefer it be over two presidential election cycles. Caveat: one problem here in the US.... we are rather unique among western democracies in that our voting age participation (VAP) is abysmal... about 35% in off year elections, 50-55% in presidential elections. I've long believed this is because in an antidemocratic system, where voters also can't vote their conscience and get some representation... the system actually discourages voting. The Trump Junta surely drives home the absurdity that in the US someone REJECTED by the people can be imposed on the nation. Finally making the system democratic would no doubt increase participation rates.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Clarence Thomas was approved by Senators who represented less than 50% of the US population. Thomas becomes the deciding vote in Bush v Gore where the right wingers on the court stop the FL recount. Bush "wins" the election because every vote in his FL lead weighed 1000x that of any vote in Gore's national lead.
US and world history were changed for the worst AGAINST the will of the People. But there's no one to blame except a mindless, antidemocratic vote weighting formula called the EC... a scheme originally designed to magnify the power of whites in slave states.
As long as there is no civic equality in the vote in terms of representation, then then is always the possibility for a tyranny of the minority... and our federal system is a giant vote weighting/dilution scheme. We see this in the EC, in the Senate where 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats... and in the amendment formula.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)The Senate is always going to be 2 per state, the EC will never be done away with. The best you can hope for is an increase in the number of House Members (and thus more EV's to help make it fairer from the larger states). Even that is going to be incredibly hard, as we will need to control both chambers of Congress. 2018 we will be crushed in the Senate, barring some crazy events, and if we do not do much better at state levels in 2018 and especially 2020, the post 2020 Census-based congressional redistricting done by utterly dominant Rethug state house majorities will prevent us from having House control until possibly 2032.
I'm sick and tired of Tory control here in the UK, but they are not at the sheer lunatic level (yet) that the US Uglicans are. IF the 2018 and 2020 US elections go badly enough (including a Trump relection) then anyone who can should consider leaving. The SCOTUS will be 6-3 or 7-2 HARD right wing, and the Rethugs will have control of every branch for the next 4 years (until 2024). By then, in the 8 years of Trump and crazy RW legislatures and courts, all gains in civil rights, etc, of the last 60 years will be rolled back. No point to staying if you can leave in that event, as it will be multiple decades of hell ensuing unter the long term damage can be unspun.
The Rethugs played the long game, and if those 2 elections go their way, they will have completely won for decades from a systemic standpoint. They are almost there now. The founding fathers sure as fuck no longer look like the geniuses so many have claimed for the last 240 years.
Succession will never be tolerated, it will be met with extreme force if the improbable happened and a state or states actually attempted it.
In almost exactly 3 years and 10 months you will know if you should pack your bags or not.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)That is the core of our Civic Religion here in the US... that we mere mortals dare not question the system because, essentially, it was handed down on a slab. The Civic Religion operates like any self-justifying and self-verifying belief system. Once someone buys into the assumption that the Constitution is the work of genius, then confirmation bias kicks in and the True Believers rationalize away all the defects and even redefines them into positive attributes. The only antidote, and even then this is unlikely to work as is evidence from discussions here, is to push the argument to more basic principles... such as how morally legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed. But even most liberal Dems refuse to define what democratic principles are... as if instinctively they know it will conflict with the Civic Religion and in doing so live in a state of constant cognitive dissonance. And if liberal Dems refuse to defend democratic concepts... then what's already a virtually reformproof system will never be reformed. We already have some of the lowest voting rates of any western democracy... and the more elections we have like 2000 and 2016... I suspect more will drop out. But the system will continue on because even if off-year elections are already down to 35% of the voting age population (VAP)... the system will go on even if the VAP drops to 25% or lower.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The South seceded to protect slavery. It's despicable accusation to conflate ALL talk of secession as equally immoral. My suggestion for CA to threaten secession was to force DEMOCRATIC REFORMS to a failing system that is unable to provide morally legitimate government.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2017, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Based on the idea that a threat that California almost certainly could not get its own citizens to support and that, even if they could, wouldn't cause the rest of the nation to do anything but force California to reconsider, would somehow scare the rest of the country into capitulating to that threat.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)on an antidemocratic and reformproof system?
Oh, that's right... you have none.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2017, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)
But if you want an idea that might not be a total waste of time -- taking a page from California's playbook (barring state-paid travel to the states with onerous LGBT laws), have all of the states that have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact adopt the same ban on state paid travel to any state that hasn't joined the compact.
Yes, there are questions about the legality of the interstate compact approach and yes the states that are the targets of this approach won't like being "blackmailed". But it would do more to get the issue into the public eye, and without the ridicule that would accompany your secession threat idea.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm sure those red states are quaking at the idea blue states may bar state-paid travel... and they'll cave right in and join. Of course they could retaliate in kind. Checkmate.
Yup, the PV compact is a clever idea which I approve of, but I'm not naive enough to realize it won't fall apart as soon as Congress refuses to approve it... or as soon as a state votes against how its own citizens voted. All the compact does is distract us from the real debate on the antidemocratic nature of our ENTIRE system... and its failure to produce morally legitimate government based on democratic principles.
Thanks for the laughs!
onenote
(42,714 posts)But to get back to facts. Apparently you think that the bans on travel to North Carolina enacted by California and other states and cities are going to hurt them more than they hurt North Carolina. Whatever.
The reality is that four of the six largest state governments (CA, NY, WA and IL) are signatories to the Interstate compact. They have lots of employees and large travel budgets. And there are several states that are among those that have the highest tourism dollars and are popular destinations for conferences that haven't signed the compact including Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. Now maybe they'll all stop sending their employees to CA, NY, Hawaii, Massachusetts and the like, although I doubt those states will feel much of a pinch.
And the point, which apparently sailed past you, was to do something that turns a spotlight on the issue of disproportionate representation in the electoral college system, and to do so without engendering the ridicule that would accompany a silly threat by California to secede -- a threat that it is virtually impossible to believe California could even get a majority of its citizens to support.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sure, I've never suggested that getting CA to agree would be easy... only that I can find no alternative to push for democratic reforms in an antidemocratic system which is for all intents and purposes reformproof. We can't expect the GOP which has contempt for democracy to ever push for reforms. What's scandalous is that even liberal Dems are AWOL on democracy even if they wear it on their sleeves. Most live in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance protected by their refusal to even define what democratic principles are. You parade this intellectual dishonesty as a legitimate rebuttal to calls for democratic reform. I see it as intellectual cowardice to confront the Civic Religion. And yet if Dems had pushed for democratic reforms back in the 30s, maybe today we might ever have had the Bush and Trump Juntas. Maybe if they had reformed the ridiclous amendment formula the EC could have been abolished by now. It's clear you refuse to question the system and want to repeat those errors rather than find some way to shock the system into considering reform. I see too much at stake nationally and globally to defer to a defective system as you do. The US is out of the control of its own population and sociopathic corporations, rabid right wingers and illegitimate presidents are filling the void.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)But nice try to drag in Jeff Davis as a strawman. No one want's to agree with the President of the CSA, amirite?
You like Interstate Highways? OMG you like Hitler...
Here check this out, and see how the Hartford Convention sounds familiar...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention
Also read some WL Garrison on this topic.
NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!!!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What then are specific prohibitions that would re-interpret the conflict as illegal on Lincoln's part?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I go back and forth on this but if secession was not prohibited in the Constitution then the 10th suggests it was left to the states. And I can find no specific power the federal government was given to suppress secessionist states. The Constitution was weaker in this area than the Articles which were specific it was to be a perpetual union. Arguably when Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution, it was seceding from that union under the Articles.
Of course armed aggression against Ft Sumter complicates this.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Sure it is the right of the people to amend the constitution (which postdates the Declaration of Independence and is a legal compact). But try to remember that we're not the only "people" out there.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)And not ONE of the amendments has ever reformed an antidemocratic feature of the Constitution.
onenote
(42,714 posts)You made clear in an earlier thread your particular view of what constitutes an anti-democratic feature of the Constitution - a view that virtually everyone else posting rejected. So there's really no point to repeating that exercise again.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Hmmm... let's review the math for the class. States with about 4% of the US population can block any amendment... yet states with as little as 40% of the US population can ratify any amendment.
Yup... nothing antidemocratic about that formula.
onenote
(42,714 posts)this issue was discussed in an earlier thread and your position (and the opposing views of almost everyone else) were clearly set forth. Go re-read that thread if you've forgotten the discussion.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sorry, I'm not a slavish adherent to the civic religion that protects our antidemocratic and reformproof system. But you're free to be.
Just don't present your views as moral from a democratic standpoint.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"the system can't be reformed in any basic way...."
What is the objective and peer-reviewed evidence illustrating your premise as a fact? Or is your allegation merely another cool and trendy t-shirt slogan? (I'm guessing it's the latter... but would certainly entertain objective evidence provided)
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Otherwise you'd have done your own analysis of the amendments. I already posted mine in post 74. To date not ONE amendment has reformed any antidemocratic aspect of the Constitution based on state suffrage.
What's next? You'll be questioning whether the Constitution is antidemocratic?
kentuck
(111,101 posts)"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)of the governed.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So by your rules... if the system is virtually reformproof because the amendment formula is absurdly antidemocratic, then that "proves" there is consent for the system? Thanks again for the laughs.
As for how many actually consented to the system? By my count 1071 white guys in the ratification committees and last I heard they're all dead. I know you have some slavish devotion to the politics of 1787 and the will of the dead. I don't.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/dates-of-ratification-of-the-constitution/
If we're talking about consent TODAY the moral legitimacy comes from government policies agreed to by the consent of the majority. And our system really fails in this regard as the Bush and Trump Junta's prove... and anything passed out of the Senate by senators that represent less than 50%+ of the population. I await your defense of the amendment formula where states with as little as 40% of the population... can ratify an amendment meaning it could be as little as 21% of the population.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2017, 11:42 PM - Edit history (1)
that, warts and all (and some of those warts include the difficult process for amending it as well as the outmoded electoral college) has worked well, albeit slowly at times. Yes, because it is slow moving, we've had years before certain reforms could be made (and others that still haven't been made). But we've also avoided the awful consequences of all the bad changes that would have occurred if we had a constitution that, like those of some countries, can be changed as frequently as some people change hair styles. The list of odious constitutional amendments that haven't been adopted is long and most definitely does not bend towards justice.
I don't know how old you are or how long your memory is. Mine is long enough to know that this isn't the first election that feels like the end of the world. Trump is horrid. Trump is dangerous. Trump is a nightmare. All true.
But I felt the same way when Richard Nixon was elected, particularly in 1972, when 20 million more of my fellow citizens chose Nixon over McGovern. At a time when we were in a war that had killed over 50,000 of my peers and torn the country in two in a way that you can't imagine if you didn't live through it. And yet within a couple of years, the Democrats were back in the WH, only to suffer another devastating blow when Reagan was elected winning 44 states- again, it felt like the end of the world, particularly when he was re-elected by an even larger margin. But by 1992 we had the WH again, and after losing it narrowly in 2000 and narrowly failing to regain it in 2004, we won it back in 2008 and kept it for 8 years. Does it suck that we lost it again, to as someone as unfit as Trump? Of course it does, but knowing that unlike some of those years where I was in the group that fell 20 million or eight million or 17 million votes short this time more people voted for Clinton that Trump gives me reason to think that we'll survive this debacle as well.
Now, I know you'll think that I've just proved your point -- that a result in which we win the national popular vote but lose the election is anti-democratic and thus we need to reform the system. And I don't disagree. The system we have is antiquated and in today's world, in which people are more mobile than ever, where nationwide communications are instantaneous, where state boundaries mean little, the old ways should change. But I live in the real world and I'm not going to throw my hands up and say that if we don't change the system we're doomed.
There is a lot of doomsday nonsense on this board now. Yes, as I said, Trump is a dangerous guy and he has facilitators and enablers all around him. But we've survived dangerous times with dangerous leaders before. And I'm confident that we will again. So instead of declaring the end of the world is nigh unless we change the system, knowing full well that we can't change the system before whenever "nigh" comes, I will choose to do what I did in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and the 2000's: spend my money and work my ass off to get Democrats elected, starting with my own local member of Congress and Senators as well as my state and local level officials.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Where did I suggest we NOT have a constitutional system? I simply want one that provides for self government based on an electoral system that can actually measure the will of the People, and a political system that can implement that will with protections for legitimate rights of minorities. I want to abolition of state suffrage and to make the vote of EVERY CITIZEN equal in weight. THAT IS THE LAW for all state and municiple elections. Obviously you have contempt for such civic equality in the vote. That's been clear from the beginning.
So thanks for AGAIN proving my point that you have no loyalty to democratic principles. Your loyalty is to an antidemocratic, virtually reformproof system that fails in providing morally legitimate government based on the consent of the governed. You defend it by a classic red herring that we should not have a Constitution that changes like hair styles. WHO PROPOSED SUCH NONSENSE? That you raise that as a defense is just more proof you can't have a rational discussion about the defects in our system.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2017, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)
I can't believe your reading comprehension or logical reasoning skills are that bad. As for your angry little rant in response to what was a measured non-hominem attempt to explain my position, well, I'm not the person whose in a position to help you with those issues.
What I can help you with is a reality check. If you spend all your time wishing for the cure to all disease, but do nothing to cure any diseases, you aren't really helping anyone.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You can't say
"I don't know how old you are or how long your memory is. Mine is long enough to know that this isn't the first election that feels like the end of the world. Trump is horrid. Trump is dangerous. Trump is a nightmare. All true."
then defend the system that imposed this sociopath on the nation when the PEOPLE had the good sense to reject him... and rationalize it all away by saying we'll just get through it as we always have. What utter contempt for democratic principles you continue to demonstrate than even NOW, you're defending the system that has brought us to this point when the toxic Right poses an existential threat to the New Deal and Great Society programs.
As for how old I am, I'm an old anti-war hippie from the 60s, have always been a left wing activist, was a polisci major as an undergrad, and finally woke up about 20 years ago to see through the illusions that rationalize away the defects in our system. It was only more recently I began to see how toxic and dangerous our system is: that the very antidemocratic nature of our system makes it unable to control the growing power of sociopathic corporations. Instead of entities designed to suit human needs, they have become our Frankensteins... molding government and the public to suit their needs. You may delude yourself that we can move slowly and everything will still work out in the end. I refuse to delude myself. I think your views are naive and dangerous... and ultimately serve right wing purposes.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Pray tell, what was the point of claiming YOU believe in a constitutional system if not to contrast your views with mine? I believe in a constitutional system as well... only one based on DEMOCRATIC principles... not one where democratic principles were compromised away as you do. But then I'm not an ideological slave to the official rationale for our system we learned in 4th grade history. I learned to think for myself and compare our defective system with modern democratic systems. I don't delude myself that everything will be OK because we've had unelected presidents imposed on the nation in the past. All we have to do is look at how Bush did incalculable damage to the US. Feel free to rationalize that all away.
In the end your no different than any other apologist for the system. You seem to believe if you just "explain" it... we're all going to agree. Sorry... I KNOW the official explanations for our system and know they're largely bullshit... that there is no intrinsic fairness in a system that purports to balance large and small state power and interests BECAUSE I DON'T CARE HOW STATES ARE REPRESENTED.... I care about how PEOPLE, the real sovereigns in 18th century republican political theory are represented. Once we look on that level... all your rationalizations and excuses for our system become laughable.
onenote
(42,714 posts)I in no way intended to suggest that I believe in a constitutional system and you don't. What I was saying, and I apologize if it wasn't clear to you, that I believe in "a constitutional system that that has worked well, albeit slowly at times", meaning that I believe in the particular constitutional system, including the slow moving, difficult process for changing it, that we have now, whereas, and I apologize if I've misread your position, you want to replace our current constitutional scheme with a fundamentally different constitutional system in which, among other things, the role of states in allocating political power would be diminished or eliminated. Presumably this would include changing the Senate so that it no longer is a 2 per state body, by changing the way the number of seats are allocated in the House, by eliminating the electoral college, and, presumably by getting rid of the provision that requires the support of 3/4 of the states to effectuate change in the constitutional system.
I think some of those changes, particularly replacing the EC with direct popular vote election of the President are overdue. (I also think the allocation methodology for the House needs to be reformed). But I recognize that the same factors that have made it difficult of those who would roll back our freedoms to amend the Constitution also make the process of achieving the changes I support difficult.
What I'm still trying to sort out, and I'm sincere in my request that you help me understand, is how you propose to get from where we are now to what I understand to be where you think we should get? Given that changing the requirement for a 3/4 vote of the states to amend the Constitutional requirement that 3/4 of the states support an amendment, and the further obstacles that raises to the other changes you want, it seems like you must be proposing not merely a revision of our existing constitution but some means of dispensing with it entirely and replacing it. So I ask, how do you think we get from here to there? And do you really think the odds are better that we can get from where we are now to where you want by somehow getting rid of and replacing our current constitutional system with a new version than they are of making incremental changes to our current constitutional system through amendments?
PS - in order to minimize the likelihood of anyone else being confused, I've edited the first sentence of my previous post to make it state more clearly what I intended.
Response to SCVDem (Original post)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)by his subjects (Colonials) because of a lack of representation in Parliament. Don't confuse it with the "Constitution" which established a formal government, after various schemes in the 13 yrs, after the break with England.
Bucky
(54,020 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)considering that the Democratic Party rejected change through the election process...until they lost.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Leaving aside the fact that our system is incapable of accurately measuring the will of the People and the political system is incapable of implementing... who is to blame when a mindless, antidemocratic abomination like the EC imposes on the nation someone REJECTED by the People? It's shocking to find here so many who defer to our defective system instead of their democratic sensibilities.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)if you mean here at DU, I think they are deferring to something Upton Sinclair described:
ymetca
(1,182 posts).. that our Constitution is fatally flawed because it is based upon the false concept of the nation-state, which was something concocted for the benefit of the ruling classes. The royals made a deal with the rich and rising merchant class to keep the angry mobs at bay; to present the illusion of choice via the ballot box.
To wit, only a global direct democracy will do. We have the technology to implement it, but people are still waving their flags and deeply mired in their racist ways, by the design of the global 1%.
The fact that it has always tended to be that way appears to be an artifact of our species' long climb out of isolation, deprivation and superstitious fear.
Whenever someone says, "we just need a leader who..." I immediately feel the wrongness of that way of thinking. Human-created hierarchies have always failed, because the model is "unnatural", in that nature doesn't really work that way. Physics doesn't really work that way. Hierarchies are an important organizing tool for analyzing data, but a lousy way to organize a society.
I suppose that unless a sufficient number of people can begin to feel safe and secure enough to "live another day", and have the time to wise up, speak out, and then act as one people of this planet, we shall continue to be misguided by demagogues, and the priests and enforcers who placate them, in exchange for better status in the social hierarchy.
Oh, but what do I know about it, really?
TeamPooka
(24,228 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)God, I hope not.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)What became the Second was merely a response to some states that demanded protections for their state militia should Congress... with its new Art 1 powers, neglect or disarm their militias. One of those states was VA... and Madison signed on to that request. Madison does state an opinion in one of the Federalist Papers that the state militias might be used to restore constitutional order to the federal government... but this opinion never made it into the Constitution or the 1792 Militia Acts. That doesn't stop gun nuts from claiming that this is the purpose of the Second.
