Electoral College and "one man one vote" mentality, WHY both left and right get it wrong.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13669
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Electoral College and "one man one vote" mentality, WHY both left and right get it wrong.

From time to time I get objections to the electoral college, state vs federal rights, and cries to go to one man one vote. I GET THIS from both the left and right. So keep this in mind that this is not a matter of class, or religion or political party. I have gotten these from both liberals and conservatives, Christians and  non Chrisitans.

First off, no system can be perfect no matter who sets it up. If you make a hammer, there is nothing stopping the person who buys it from smashing someone's scull in with it. Don't blame the hammer for what the person does with it.

Governments are not made up of machines and they are only as good as the people in them and the society that supports them.

NOW, why did the founders set up the electoral college?

Because they lived under an authority prior, that although had a voting and a Parliament, they lived in under a system that had no check on power, so they could not challenge the authority. Imagine if Hitler ran for president and there was no electoral college to prevent him from taking office. "Majority rules" is a bad idea as an absolute.

1. People complain on both sides the election of 2000 would have been easily settled without the electoral college. Missing the concept behind it. If we value protecting our government from getting to absolute power, the electoral college serves as a reminder that NO ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT, NOT EVEN THE VOTER, should have absolute power. AND IT IS FAIR, why? Because long term it can benefit anyone. It is a law that is not monopolized by one party and only benefits one party. It is merely a metaphorical reminder LONG TERM that our system is a guiding principle and not a dictatorial one. I was NOT happy that BUSH won without the popular vote, but I would not want a voting system where voters ALWAYS got what they wanted. It would be stripping the concept of protection of dissent WHICH IS VITAL in a free society.

2. SUPREME COURT,

Another bullshit claim I get from both sides is "legislate from the bench". Often hurled by one side or the other when a ruling doesn't go their way. I agree that judges do make rulings that suit there agendas, BUT BOTH SIDES DO THAT. BUT IT IS FAIR, why? Because we have elections LONG TERM, those judges EITHER SIDE can be replaced and even prior rulings over turned. Take away their autonomy then the  law gets stuck in place and there would be no way to change it in the future if we wanted.

3. Executive order. ANOTHER bullshit argument I get from both sides. AGAIN it is fair because all the presidents have used it, even to over turn prior presidents orders. Fair because WE have the opportunity to CHANGE.

4. States rights vs federal. AGAIN, NOT EITHER OR BUT "DEPENDS". States can have autonomy AS LONG as it does not violate the constitutional rights that ALL citizens have. Thus the Supremacy Clause. Thus when there is a dispute between the two the courts take each case as a case by case basis and not the entire government in all cases as ALL fed or all state. IT DEPENDS, and that keeps absolute power from taking hold either way.

All these things above people are so ready to shit on and get rid of forgetting that if they did, that could potentially make the entire system useless to a minority and give absolute power to a majority.

OUR SYSTEM is not based on absolute power, but a system that says NO ONE ASPECT of our government, be it the President, the congress, the courts, or even the voter, can have absolute power. Our system is one based on anti-monopoly concepts that says WE GUIDE but we do not dictate, and we protect dissent so that ALL OF US can have future opportunities to make change. If we make this about voters having absolute power, then we are no better than one person having absolute power.

THE ENTIRE CONCEPT of our Constitution is to prevent absolute power LONG TERM. I have heard both liberals and conservatives bitch about all the things above, and to me, this is short term selfish thinking. Dissent must be protected in a free society and as such everything our government does should be guiding, not dictating with the ability to change.

PLEASE do not fuck with a Constitution that protects dissent. You strip away those checks and balances and try to make a blanket one size fits all solution, no matter who you are, liberal or conservative, theist or atheist, LONG TERM it wont be good for anyone.

I implore my liberal politically correct friends AND my economic detractors BOTH to not fall for the crap our media uses to divide us. Beyond rightfully does not want absolute power, nor  do I, nor should any liberal. It is OUR government, but it is not anyone's absolute right to dictate to others. So WE can only vote as a guiding principle, not a dictatorial one. I accept that sometime my side loses, but I do not lose hope when they do because every November I can vote.

The future is all any of us have, but non of us will have a free society if we strip any part of our checks and balances and insist solely on mob rule by vote.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The whole system of one

The whole system of one person one vote is on it way to collapse.

It is highly irrational to have people that pay nothing or little and recieve entitlements, benefits and salaries have their vote count the same as those that pay a lot of tax and receive almost no benefit.

How about one vote per dollar paid in taxes and fees?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:NOW, why did

Brian37 wrote:

NOW, why did the founders set up the electoral college?

Because they lived under an authority prior, that although had a voting and a Parliament, they lived in under a system that had no check on power, so they could not challenge the authority. Imagine if Hitler ran for president and there was no electoral college to prevent him from taking office. "Majority rules" is a bad idea as an absolute.

1. People complain on both sides the election of 2000 would have been easily settled without the electoral college. Missing the concept behind it. If we value protecting our government from getting to absolute power, the electoral college serves as a reminder that NO ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT, NOT EVEN THE VOTER, should have absolute power. AND IT IS FAIR, why? Because long term it can benefit anyone. It is a law that is not monopolized by one party and only benefits one party. It is merely a metaphorical reminder LONG TERM that our system is a guiding principle and not a dictatorial one. I was NOT happy that BUSH won without the popular vote, but I would not want a voting system where voters ALWAYS got what they wanted. It would be stripping the concept of protection of dissent WHICH IS VITAL in a free society.

Except the electoral college has never performed the function it was designed to do. Electors have always gone with the popular votes in their states with a handful of exceptions that didn't affect the outcome. In practice the only function the electoral college performs is to slightly reduce the influence of high population states and in close elections make it so recounts only have to be performed in certain states rather than an entire national recount. So from that aspect alone I think it is useful. But to pretend that somehow the electoral college is going to prevent someone like Hitler or anyone else from becoming president is pure fantasy. Electors are going to cast their votes with their states popular vote, no matter how incompetent or dangerous the candidate is. Hamilton's idea that the electoral college would provide some tempering to mob rule has been proven false and I doubt it would prevent a spy from another country being elected either. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

 

I wouldn't support an amendment to get rid of the electoral college, but I don't think it is really that vital or is effective at performing the role it was intended to perform.

 

Brian37 wrote:

2. SUPREME COURT,

Another bullshit claim I get from both sides is "legislate from the bench". Often hurled by one side or the other when a ruling doesn't go their way. I agree that judges do make rulings that suit there agendas, BUT BOTH SIDES DO THAT. BUT IT IS FAIR, why? Because we have elections LONG TERM, those judges EITHER SIDE can be replaced and even prior rulings over turned. Take away their autonomy then the  law gets stuck in place and there would be no way to change it in the future if we wanted.

You are assuming there are only two sides. It is always bad when a judge allows their political biases to control the law and judges who do so should be unelected and/or prevented from moving to more powerful positions. Although I consider the Court systems inability/unwillingness to prevent the massive power grab of Congress and the President far more alarming than judges legislating from the bench. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

3. Executive order. ANOTHER bullshit argument I get from both sides. AGAIN it is fair because all the presidents have used it, even to over turn prior presidents orders. Fair because WE have the opportunity to CHANGE.

Depends on the exact order. Some orders are required out of the practicality of performing executive duties. However, if any executive order is inconsistent with the specific powers delegated to the President in the Constitution or inconsistent with passed law- then they can be and should be slapped down by Congress. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

4. States rights vs federal. AGAIN, NOT EITHER OR BUT "DEPENDS". States can have autonomy AS LONG as it does not violate the constitutional rights that ALL citizens have. Thus the Supremacy Clause. Thus when there is a dispute between the two the courts take each case as a case by case basis and not the entire government in all cases as ALL fed or all state. IT DEPENDS, and that keeps absolute power from taking hold either way.

Then why aren't you on my side when I say the federal government should perform ONLY the duties it is specifically given by the Constitution and everything else ought to be delegated to the states. The Constitution is extremely clear on what powers the federal government is supposed to have and the vast majority of what the federal government does today is not on that list.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13669
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Then why aren't you on

Quote:
Then why aren't you on my side when I say the federal government should perform ONLY the duties it is specifically given by the Constitution and everything else ought to be delegated to the states

So if a state wants force people to swear an oath to Jesus your attitude would be to leave it up to the states? How should the private sector be immune to what religion is subject to? If it is not ok to play favorites to a religion, then simply owning a business doesn't mean only the owners have a voice. Otherwise only rich Christians should have the sole rights to interpret the Constitution.

Your problem is again, you think the government should never do anything. You also think that the private sector can not abuse it's power despite the crash it caused.

You seem to only want the Constitution to work when you get what you want. If it is about competition and we both can compete through the voting booth, then don't bitch when you lose an election. Otherwise all you are saying is only "I get what I want."

It is not States rights vs Federal, but the private sector does not deserve to be the only people protected by the government. The workers in the middle class and working poor have the same rights. I would suggest again, if the minimal government is what you seek, I see  NOTHING from your mentality's ilk that says I should trust government always siding with the private sector. The private sector is as much a human operation as the government is, and as such, if the government should have checks and balances, I am the check and balance on the private sector. YOU are NOT the only one who has rights/

Get your ilk to stop abusing the system and stop monopolizing the system and stop exploding the pay gap and cost of living. UNLESS you are willing to do that, the rest of us will appeal to the same government we have a right to vote for, to protect us from the corporate abuse that caused this mess.

YOU want it to work one way, and it is a two way street. WHEN the abuse stops and the middle and poor don't have to worry about starving to death to pad your fucking profits, then we will back off. But we are not going to starve to death because people like you are too fucking selfish to care.

COMPETITION WORKS both ways, don't bitch if someone else competes for the political seat and wins. Tell the corporate assholes who wrecked the car to care.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Except

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Except the electoral college has never performed the function it was designed to do. Electors have always gone with the popular votes in their states with a handful of exceptions that didn't affect the outcome. In practice the only function the electoral college performs is to slightly reduce the influence of high population states and in close elections make it so recounts only have to be performed in certain states rather than an entire national recount. So from that aspect alone I think it is useful. But to pretend that somehow the electoral college is going to prevent someone like Hitler or anyone else from becoming president is pure fantasy. Electors are going to cast their votes with their states popular vote, no matter how incompetent or dangerous the candidate is. Hamilton's idea that the electoral college would provide some tempering to mob rule has been proven false and I doubt it would prevent a spy from another country being elected either. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

What happens with direct election is the people counting the votes end up working for the incumbent. One good thing about the Florida recount was that is was ultimately controlled by the Florida legislature and not the Clinton administration.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Then why

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Then why aren't you on my side when I say the federal government should perform ONLY the duties it is specifically given by the Constitution and everything else ought to be delegated to the states

So if a state wants force people to swear an oath to Jesus your attitude would be to leave it up to the states? How should the private sector be immune to what religion is subject to? If it is not ok to play favorites to a religion, then simply owning a business doesn't mean only the owners have a voice. Otherwise only rich Christians should have the sole rights to interpret the Constitution.

Where do you get that? States are bound by the Constitution too and the 1st Amendment applies to states as well as the federal government (through the 14th Amendment, prior to the 14th states could and some did have official religions)

 

Brian37 wrote:

Your problem is again, you think the government should never do anything. You also think that the private sector can not abuse it's power despite the crash it caused.

You seem to only want the Constitution to work when you get what you want. If it is about competition and we both can compete through the voting booth, then don't bitch when you lose an election. Otherwise all you are saying is only "I get what I want."

 

Your the one who wrote an OP talking about how we should follow the Constitution regardless of what the majority at the voting booth wants. On the question of federal vs. state power the Constitution is very clear. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Then of course there is the 10th Amendment which says 

 

The Constitution wrote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

The power NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution- in layman terms any power you can imagine that isn't specifically given to the federal government

 

nor prohibited by the States- excluding any powers the States are specifically prohibited from which since the 14th includes the prohibitions against establishing a religion (and other fundamental rights). 

 

are reserved to the States respectively- that means that those powers outlined by the above qualifiers belong to the States, not the feds.

 

or to the people- in other words, either the states have the power or if they defer it goes to the people- NOT the federal government.

 

Brian37 wrote:

It is not States rights vs Federal, but the private sector does not deserve to be the only people protected by the government. The workers in the middle class and working poor have the same rights. I would suggest again, if the minimal government is what you seek, I see  NOTHING from your mentality's ilk that says I should trust government always siding with the private sector. The private sector is as much a human operation as the government is, and as such, if the government should have checks and balances, I am the check and balance on the private sector. YOU are NOT the only one who has rights/

Get your ilk to stop abusing the system and stop monopolizing the system and stop exploding the pay gap and cost of living. UNLESS you are willing to do that, the rest of us will appeal to the same government we have a right to vote for, to protect us from the corporate abuse that caused this mess.

YOU want it to work one way, and it is a two way street. WHEN the abuse stops and the middle and poor don't have to worry about starving to death to pad your fucking profits, then we will back off. But we are not going to starve to death because people like you are too fucking selfish to care.

COMPETITION WORKS both ways, don't bitch if someone else competes for the political seat and wins. Tell the corporate assholes who wrecked the car to care.

It is States rights vs. federal, the question is whether or not the federal government has the constitutional authority to do what it is doing. If you want to follow the Constitution in a strict sense as your OP suggests we should than obviously the federal government does not have the authority to exercise many of the powers it exercises on a daily basis. Those powers are supposed to belong to the states. I find it ironic that you get on the high horse proclaiming we ought to follow the Constitution when you can't point anywhere in the Constitution to find the authority for the federal government to do half the things you proclaim it should. 

 

Your OP proclaims the virtue of the Constitution in protecting from pure majority rule, yet your argument against me is that my side lost the election so I should shut up about the Constitution......c'mon even you have to see the internal inconsistency there.

 

If we are going to agree that the government should follow the Constitution, I would love to see some arguments explaining how the feds investing in green energy, Bamacare, quantitative easing, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or any of the programs you support are Constitutional. Where in the Constitution is the government getting those powers? Note "because it is a good idea" is not a constitutional argument. Even if it is an extremely good idea does not mean it is constitutional until you pass an amendment. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13669
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:The power NOT

Quote:
The power NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution- in layman terms any power you can imagine that isn't specifically given to the federal government

SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

Power is negotiated not dictated. That is the part you don't want to get, which is why you falsely think the non government sector is incapable of abuse.

IF power is NOT specific, AND I AGREE, the only way it can be general is by consent. You want consent of the private sector as if it is the final law. You don't want negotiation. You simply want to be the alpha male. Which is the intent of the anti monopoly motif of the entire Constitution.

LISTEN TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

Quote:
The power NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution

So if neither you are I can look to the Constitution to determine what rights either you or I have, then where is power "delegated" from?

My safe bet is that the Constitution does not delegate power when it conflicts with your personal desires but does when it agrees with what you desire.


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13669
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Beyond Saving

EXC wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Except the electoral college has never performed the function it was designed to do. Electors have always gone with the popular votes in their states with a handful of exceptions that didn't affect the outcome. In practice the only function the electoral college performs is to slightly reduce the influence of high population states and in close elections make it so recounts only have to be performed in certain states rather than an entire national recount. So from that aspect alone I think it is useful. But to pretend that somehow the electoral college is going to prevent someone like Hitler or anyone else from becoming president is pure fantasy. Electors are going to cast their votes with their states popular vote, no matter how incompetent or dangerous the candidate is. Hamilton's idea that the electoral college would provide some tempering to mob rule has been proven false and I doubt it would prevent a spy from another country being elected either. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

What happens with direct election is the people counting the votes end up working for the incumbent. One good thing about the Florida recount was that is was ultimately controlled by the Florida legislature and not the Clinton administration.

STILL COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT.

I WAS FINE with the outcome even my guy did not win.

The fact that Bush won without the popular vote IS NOT MY ISSUE. It works, like I said because long term if roles are reversed it can work for both sides, LONG TERM. This winning by electoral vote and not popular vote has only happened 4 times in our history.

My only problem with the recount is the claim that by the right that it wouldn't have changed the outcome. If that is the case, and I agree, then denying Gore the right to ask for one seems absurd.

No, the outcome would not have changed even if the recount had happened. My only problem was that the Bush camp stopped it. It wouldn't have changed a thing. Stopping the recount needlessly cast suspicion. If they had let it happen the same outcome would have happened.

What you miss and my side misses is not about one election.

It is about the long term message for hundreds or thousands of years for ALL citizens and what WE would want if YOU OR I end up in the minority because of the fact that power shifts over time.

The electoral collage is not about one election or one party. It is simply the attitude that when things get close we flip a coin. The 4 Presidents WHO have won the electoral collage but not the popular vote did not violate voters rights.

What the founders suggested is that if ANY party or any label wanted to avoid the coin toss, work to prevent it getting that close. But if it got that close, it would be better that a coin toss happen, than mob rule by vote dictating every time.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:The

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The power NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution- in layman terms any power you can imagine that isn't specifically given to the federal government

SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

supremacy clause wrote:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...

This Constitution- means this document dumb ass

 

and the Laws of the United States- Federal law, listed secondly and not by accident

 

which shall be made in pursuance thereof- pursuance means pursuing a plan or action. This means not any old federal law Congress wants to pass, laws that are passed in pursuance of the Constitution, laws that are consistent with the division of power set up in the Constitution. They recognized that there is some overlap of powers and stated that the Constitution and federal law would trump state laws in that situation. That doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives the federal government specific powers and leaves the rest to the states. 

 

The supremacy clause only comes into effect when the federal government is exercising the power given to it already in the Constitution. The Constitution was written expressly to limit the power of federal government, it isn't "the fed can do whatever it wants and the states have to suck it". 

 

Don't take my word for it, consider Federalist #33 where Alexander Hamilton discusses the supremacy clause.

Federalist 33 by Alexander Hamilton wrote:

But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Power is negotiated not dictated. That is the part you don't want to get, which is why you falsely think the non government sector is incapable of abuse.

And its a bitch when one side decides to ignore the division of power that was negotiated. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

LISTEN TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

Quote:
The power NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution

So if neither you are I can look to the Constitution to determine what rights either you or I have, then where is power "delegated" from?

?!?!?!?!

The 10th Amendment is very clear, power is delegated FROM the Constitution. Some powers are delegated directly to the federal government. Those that are not specifically delegated and are not prohibited to the states goes to the states or the people. What part of that do you not get?

 

Brian37 wrote:

My safe bet is that the Constitution does not delegate power when it conflicts with your personal desires but does when it agrees with what you desire.

?!?!? um no, the Constitution says the same thing every day. Feel free to ask me about any law I support and I will show you exactly where in the Constitution I find the authority to pass that law. Many of the laws you support might be perfectly consistent with the Constitution on the state or local level but those powers were not delegated to the federal government. You should spend some time reading the Federalist Papers and also some time reading the Anti-Federalists. In many ways the anti-federalist predictions were accurate in how the federal government would slowly seize power from the states. 

http://constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm

http://constitution.org/afp.htm

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13669
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The power NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution- in layman terms any power you can imagine that isn't specifically given to the federal government

SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

supremacy clause wrote:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...

This Constitution- means this document dumb ass

 

and the Laws of the United States- Federal law, listed secondly and not by accident

 

which shall be made in pursuance thereof- pursuance means pursuing a plan or action. This means not any old federal law Congress wants to pass, laws that are passed in pursuance of the Constitution, laws that are consistent with the division of power set up in the Constitution. They recognized that there is some overlap of powers and stated that the Constitution and federal law would trump state laws in that situation. That doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives the federal government specific powers and leaves the rest to the states. 

 

The supremacy clause only comes into effect when the federal government is exercising the power given to it already in the Constitution. The Constitution was written expressly to limit the power of federal government, it isn't "the fed can do whatever it wants and the states have to suck it". 

 

Don't take my word for it, consider Federalist #33 where Alexander Hamilton discusses the supremacy clause.

Federalist 33 by Alexander Hamilton wrote:

But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Power is negotiated not dictated. That is the part you don't want to get, which is why you falsely think the non government sector is incapable of abuse.

And its a bitch when one side decides to ignore the division of power that was negotiated. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

LISTEN TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

Quote:
The power NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution

So if neither you are I can look to the Constitution to determine what rights either you or I have, then where is power "delegated" from?

?!?!?!?!

The 10th Amendment is very clear, power is delegated FROM the Constitution. Some powers are delegated directly to the federal government. Those that are not specifically delegated and are not prohibited to the states goes to the states or the people. What part of that do you not get?

 

Brian37 wrote:

My safe bet is that the Constitution does not delegate power when it conflicts with your personal desires but does when it agrees with what you desire.

?!?!? um no, the Constitution says the same thing every day. Feel free to ask me about any law I support and I will show you exactly where in the Constitution I find the authority to pass that law. Many of the laws you support might be perfectly consistent with the Constitution on the state or local level but those powers were not delegated to the federal government. You should spend some time reading the Federalist Papers and also some time reading the Anti-Federalists. In many ways the anti-federalist predictions were accurate in how the federal government would slowly seize power from the states. 

http://constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm

http://constitution.org/afp.htm

I agree the Constitution DOES say the same thing WE both can read. Accept that when you read it it, just like when WE read the bible, you see what you want to see which just so happens to suit your own personal desires, just like a theist.

FYI I find it funny that you are quoting the Federalists papers, which are not the Constitution. Just like when a Christians quotes a founder about the Magna Carta claiming we are a "Christian Nation".

You stupidly think that the only purpose the Constitution serves is to protect a "no man's land" and a "wild west" John Wayne world.

SUPREMACY CLAUSE! That is the part you keep ignoring. The rights of the majority DO NOT trump the rights of the minority.

All you are trying to defend is the protection of wealth and money. Our Constitution is not solely there to protect the rights of people with money.

Jefferson supported the French Revolution. Now, if he had known how it would end up, he would NOT have supported it. But he saw the same oppression of the centralized wealth and the monopoly of power that wealth had creating mass poverty. He supported the overthrow of that monopoly of power. He did not support the outcome because that was simply replacing one monopoly with another.

You willfully ignore the monopoly money has on our politics which is creating more poverty and more indentured slavery. If that continues EVEN YOU and your business will be affected.

AGAIN, you want government off your back, then that requires an attitude change. What WILL NOT happen is you trying to falsely claim that the Constitution's goal is for us to stab each other to death in a race for the buck.

It is OUR Constitution, not solely yours and not solely there to protect money. You need to pull your head out of Gordon Gecko's ass, your utopia is just as fictional as that character. The reality is ANYTHING, including the private sector, can and will go off the rails if left to it's own devices.

WHICH IS WHY WE have a Constitution. Don't bitch when someone else employs use of it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I agree the

Brian37 wrote:

I agree the Constitution DOES say the same thing WE both can read. Accept that when you read it it, just like when WE read the bible, you see what you want to see which just so happens to suit your own personal desires, just like a theist.

Show me where my interpretation is wrong. Show me one law I have advocated that is contrary to the Constitution and I will either provide an explanation for my interpretation or admit I was wrong and stop supporting that law. If that law is important enough to me I might start pushing for a constitutional amendment. Where in the Constitution does the federal government derive the authority to require me to buy health insurance? Show me the clause. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

FYI I find it funny that you are quoting the Federalists papers, which are not the Constitution. Just like when a Christians quotes a founder about the Magna Carta claiming we are a "Christian Nation".

The federalist papers were written by the supporters of ratification dumb ass. They break the Constitution down issue by issue and explain what it means. I use the federalist papers as an appeal to authority to support my interpretation. I believe that when you are interpreting something that looking at what the people who wrote it said about it is an effective way to gain context. In the case of the Constitution we have the benefit of having a wide array of writings from both the supporters and detractors, I find it very instructive to read the writings of both sides. It helps you get an understanding of what people were voting for or against and why. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You stupidly think that the only purpose the Constitution serves is to protect a "no man's land" and a "wild west" John Wayne world.

No, it exists for the purpose of protecting a Republic, which means that the states should have most powers. That means California can regulate the hell out of whatever they want and South Dakota can have no regulations at all if they want (and either can change their mind). I would choose to live in a state with more freedom even though I love California.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

SUPREMACY CLAUSE! That is the part you keep ignoring. The rights of the majority DO NOT trump the rights of the minority.

Shouting SUPREMACY CLAUSE! is not an argument. I explained the supremacy clause line by line and referenced an authoritative source to back up my understanding of the clause. What do you think the supremacy clause means? Do you have any sources, evidence or legal reasoning to support your interpretation?

 

Brian37 wrote:

All you are trying to defend is the protection of wealth and money. Our Constitution is not solely there to protect the rights of people with money.

All I defend is liberty, with a few exceptions the Constitution does provide a fairly good framework for attempting to preserve liberty. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

AGAIN, you want government off your back, then that requires an attitude change. What WILL NOT happen is you trying to falsely claim that the Constitution's goal is for us to stab each other to death in a race for the buck.

It is OUR Constitution, not solely yours and not solely there to protect money. You need to pull your head out of Gordon Gecko's ass, your utopia is just as fictional as that character. The reality is ANYTHING, including the private sector, can and will go off the rails if left to it's own devices.

I made no such claim. I made the claim that the federal government ought to exercise only the powers delegated to it and everything else is to the states per the 10th Amendment. Your ranting about all these other subjects is pointless. I listed several current laws I believe the federal government is exercising power outside its constitutional authority. We have a fixed document to work with, if we agree that the government should follow the Constitution, then tell me how the laws you support are consistent with the Constitution.

 

Brian37 wrote:

WHICH IS WHY WE have a Constitution. Don't bitch when someone else employs use of it.

How are you employing it? You have not made any reference to the Constitution's text other than to shout SUPREMACY CLAUSE! as if the supremacy clause somehow justifies any and all actions you like. Pick one law of the list I made and explain to me where in the Constitution the federal government derives its authority to pass that law. If you can't, then simply admit that you don't think we should follow the Constitution anymore.  

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13669
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I agree the Constitution DOES say the same thing WE both can read. Accept that when you read it it, just like when WE read the bible, you see what you want to see which just so happens to suit your own personal desires, just like a theist.

Show me where my interpretation is wrong. Show me one law I have advocated that is contrary to the Constitution and I will either provide an explanation for my interpretation or admit I was wrong and stop supporting that law. If that law is important enough to me I might start pushing for a constitutional amendment. Where in the Constitution does the federal government derive the authority to require me to buy health insurance? Show me the clause. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

FYI I find it funny that you are quoting the Federalists papers, which are not the Constitution. Just like when a Christians quotes a founder about the Magna Carta claiming we are a "Christian Nation".

The federalist papers were written by the supporters of ratification dumb ass. They break the Constitution down issue by issue and explain what it means. I use the federalist papers as an appeal to authority to support my interpretation. I believe that when you are interpreting something that looking at what the people who wrote it said about it is an effective way to gain context. In the case of the Constitution we have the benefit of having a wide array of writings from both the supporters and detractors, I find it very instructive to read the writings of both sides. It helps you get an understanding of what people were voting for or against and why. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You stupidly think that the only purpose the Constitution serves is to protect a "no man's land" and a "wild west" John Wayne world.

No, it exists for the purpose of protecting a Republic, which means that the states should have most powers. That means California can regulate the hell out of whatever they want and South Dakota can have no regulations at all if they want (and either can change their mind). I would choose to live in a state with more freedom even though I love California.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

SUPREMACY CLAUSE! That is the part you keep ignoring. The rights of the majority DO NOT trump the rights of the minority.

Shouting SUPREMACY CLAUSE! is not an argument. I explained the supremacy clause line by line and referenced an authoritative source to back up my understanding of the clause. What do you think the supremacy clause means? Do you have any sources, evidence or legal reasoning to support your interpretation?

 

Brian37 wrote:

All you are trying to defend is the protection of wealth and money. Our Constitution is not solely there to protect the rights of people with money.

All I defend is liberty, with a few exceptions the Constitution does provide a fairly good framework for attempting to preserve liberty. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

AGAIN, you want government off your back, then that requires an attitude change. What WILL NOT happen is you trying to falsely claim that the Constitution's goal is for us to stab each other to death in a race for the buck.

It is OUR Constitution, not solely yours and not solely there to protect money. You need to pull your head out of Gordon Gecko's ass, your utopia is just as fictional as that character. The reality is ANYTHING, including the private sector, can and will go off the rails if left to it's own devices.

I made no such claim. I made the claim that the federal government ought to exercise only the powers delegated to it and everything else is to the states per the 10th Amendment. Your ranting about all these other subjects is pointless. I listed several current laws I believe the federal government is exercising power outside its constitutional authority. We have a fixed document to work with, if we agree that the government should follow the Constitution, then tell me how the laws you support are consistent with the Constitution.

 

Brian37 wrote:

WHICH IS WHY WE have a Constitution. Don't bitch when someone else employs use of it.

How are you employing it? You have not made any reference to the Constitution's text other than to shout SUPREMACY CLAUSE! as if the supremacy clause somehow justifies any and all actions you like. Pick one law of the list I made and explain to me where in the Constitution the federal government derives its authority to pass that law. If you can't, then simply admit that you don't think we should follow the Constitution anymore.  

 

 

I know shouting "Supremacy clause" WONT do a damned bit of good with you. Because like a theist, it will only suit your own personal desires.

Because YOU, interpret the words in the Constitution like a Baptist and Catholic argue over the bible.

I HAVE been consistent with the INTENT of the Constitution in the following.

IT IS NOT OWNED BY ANY ONE PERSON, POLITICAL LABEL, CLASS OR RELIGION.

You masturbate over business ownership and wealth as if those are the only things in a society with any rights.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

IF that were the case and the only thing our founders were concerned about was the protection of property rights and protection of wealth, THEN WHY DIDN'T THEY PUT SPECIFIC WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVING A PECKING ORDER TO THOSE WITH SUCH?

SAME FUCKING ARGUMENT I make with theists who make the bullshit argument about "Christian nation"

Just like IF the founders intended a pecking order of Christianity over all others then WHY did they fail to mention Jesus or Christianity as being the alpha male in law making?

IF IF IF IF

If the intent of the founders was to protect only money then why not mention only those with property and those with money have rights?

BECAUSE unlike you they were thinking ahead. Unlike you they cracked the door open for EVERYONE by keeping that document open for all of use to ATTEMPT to use.

IF IF IF IF IF IF they only wanted to side with you it would have been simple to put something in the Constitution that went something like this.

"Only those who have money and only those who own property have rights"

SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION THOSE WORDS.

YOU WONT FUCKING FIND THEM

Your "you want to rob me" is bullshit martyrdom on par with the fallacy of Jews, Muslims and Christians and their pathetic childish claims of persecution.

SHOW ME WHERE THE FUCK IN THE CONSTITUTION MONEY IS THE ONLY THING THE FOUNDERS INTENDED ON PROTECTING?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13669
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I agree the Constitution DOES say the same thing WE both can read. Accept that when you read it it, just like when WE read the bible, you see what you want to see which just so happens to suit your own personal desires, just like a theist.

Show me where my interpretation is wrong. Show me one law I have advocated that is contrary to the Constitution and I will either provide an explanation for my interpretation or admit I was wrong and stop supporting that law. If that law is important enough to me I might start pushing for a constitutional amendment. Where in the Constitution does the federal government derive the authority to require me to buy health insurance? Show me the clause. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

FYI I find it funny that you are quoting the Federalists papers, which are not the Constitution. Just like when a Christians quotes a founder about the Magna Carta claiming we are a "Christian Nation".

The federalist papers were written by the supporters of ratification dumb ass. They break the Constitution down issue by issue and explain what it means. I use the federalist papers as an appeal to authority to support my interpretation. I believe that when you are interpreting something that looking at what the people who wrote it said about it is an effective way to gain context. In the case of the Constitution we have the benefit of having a wide array of writings from both the supporters and detractors, I find it very instructive to read the writings of both sides. It helps you get an understanding of what people were voting for or against and why. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You stupidly think that the only purpose the Constitution serves is to protect a "no man's land" and a "wild west" John Wayne world.

No, it exists for the purpose of protecting a Republic, which means that the states should have most powers. That means California can regulate the hell out of whatever they want and South Dakota can have no regulations at all if they want (and either can change their mind). I would choose to live in a state with more freedom even though I love California.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

SUPREMACY CLAUSE! That is the part you keep ignoring. The rights of the majority DO NOT trump the rights of the minority.

Shouting SUPREMACY CLAUSE! is not an argument. I explained the supremacy clause line by line and referenced an authoritative source to back up my understanding of the clause. What do you think the supremacy clause means? Do you have any sources, evidence or legal reasoning to support your interpretation?

 

Brian37 wrote:

All you are trying to defend is the protection of wealth and money. Our Constitution is not solely there to protect the rights of people with money.

All I defend is liberty, with a few exceptions the Constitution does provide a fairly good framework for attempting to preserve liberty. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

AGAIN, you want government off your back, then that requires an attitude change. What WILL NOT happen is you trying to falsely claim that the Constitution's goal is for us to stab each other to death in a race for the buck.

It is OUR Constitution, not solely yours and not solely there to protect money. You need to pull your head out of Gordon Gecko's ass, your utopia is just as fictional as that character. The reality is ANYTHING, including the private sector, can and will go off the rails if left to it's own devices.

I made no such claim. I made the claim that the federal government ought to exercise only the powers delegated to it and everything else is to the states per the 10th Amendment. Your ranting about all these other subjects is pointless. I listed several current laws I believe the federal government is exercising power outside its constitutional authority. We have a fixed document to work with, if we agree that the government should follow the Constitution, then tell me how the laws you support are consistent with the Constitution.

 

Brian37 wrote:

WHICH IS WHY WE have a Constitution. Don't bitch when someone else employs use of it.

How are you employing it? You have not made any reference to the Constitution's text other than to shout SUPREMACY CLAUSE! as if the supremacy clause somehow justifies any and all actions you like. Pick one law of the list I made and explain to me where in the Constitution the federal government derives its authority to pass that law. If you can't, then simply admit that you don't think we should follow the Constitution anymore.  

 

 

I know shouting "Supremacy clause" WONT do a damned bit of good with you. Because like a theist, it will only suit your own personal desires.

Because YOU, interpret the words in the Constitution like a Baptist and Catholic argue over the bible.

I HAVE been consistent with the INTENT of the Constitution in the following.

IT IS NOT OWNED BY ANY ONE PERSON, POLITICAL LABEL, CLASS OR RELIGION.

You masturbate over business ownership and wealth as if those are the only things in a society with any rights.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

IF that were the case and the only thing our founders were concerned about was the protection of property rights and protection of wealth, THEN WHY DIDN'T THEY PUT SPECIFIC WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVING A PECKING ORDER TO THOSE WITH SUCH?

SAME FUCKING ARGUMENT I make with theists who make the bullshit argument about "Christian nation"

Just like IF the founders intended a pecking order of Christianity over all others then WHY did they fail to mention Jesus or Christianity as being the alpha male in law making?

IF IF IF IF

If the intent of the founders was to protect only money then why not mention only those with property and those with money have rights?

BECAUSE unlike you they were thinking ahead. Unlike you they cracked the door open for EVERYONE by keeping that document open for all of us to ATTEMPT to use.

IF IF IF IF IF IF they only wanted to side with you it would have been simple to put something in the Constitution that went something like this.

"Only those who have money and only those who own property have rights"

SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION THOSE WORDS.

YOU WONT FUCKING FIND THEM

Your "you want to rob me" is bullshit martyrdom on par with the fallacy of Jews, Muslims and Christians and their pathetic childish claims of persecution.

SHOW ME WHERE THE FUCK IN THE CONSTITUTION MONEY IS THE ONLY THING THE FOUNDERS INTENDED ON PROTECTING?

So if you are not trying to protect your apha male mentality based on the ideology of protecting money, and you agree that I have the right to vote, please explain to me what rights you would lose if someone other than you wins an election? I put up with Bush and his inept disaster and I didn't demand the end of our Constitution.

All I smell from your sorry argument is sour grapes.

All I am getting from you is "I'm going to whine like a baby if I don't always get what I want".

What the founders omitted from the Constitution was their way of opening the door for everyone. They DELIBERATELY left out religion and class and politics as a litmus test to considering value to an individual. Otherwise if their intent was favoritism as to who is most qualified to decide what the Constitution ment, they would have said so. What they intended is that WE were all individuals and there was never an intent on pecking order as to who has rights over competing for public office.

Thus what laws we vote on are also NOT subject to class or religion or political party as a litmus test. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But you are not entitled by proxy of owning a business or or being rich, to dictate to those who don't.

Now if you don't like the fact that I am poor and have the right to vote, then go work on outlawing  voting by proxy of income. Good luck with that.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I know

Brian37 wrote:

I know shouting "Supremacy clause" WONT do a damned bit of good with you. Because like a theist, it will only suit your own personal desires.

I think you mean like an atheist I request a logical argument with supporting evidence. Theists are the ones generally persuaded by simply shouting words. I would love to see you lay out your interpretation of the supremacy clause if it is different than mine. I think it would be more productive than your endless class warfare rhetoric. Especially since this isn't an economics thread.

 

Brian37 wrote:

SHOW ME WHERE THE FUCK IN THE CONSTITUTION MONEY IS THE ONLY THING THE FOUNDERS INTENDED ON PROTECTING?

SHOW ME WHERE THE FUCK I EVER MADE THAT CLAIM. Show me one quote of mine where I supported any law that you believe is unconstitutional. Or try to create a coherent argument that any of the programs I claim are unconstitutional in fact are constitutional. There are some semi-respectable legal arguments for some of them. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X