Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

CuteOldGuy · 10-02-2011, 12:55 AM

TTH, so when the population disagrees with you, Congress should do the right thing in spite of the will of the people. Hmmm . . .

TexTushHog · 10-02-2011, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

TTH, so when the population disagrees with you, Congress should do the right thing in spite of the will of the people. Hmmm . . .

Absolutely. Otherwise, why not just have the public vote on bills on the internet between 7 - 8 p.m. on Thursday nights.

The founders feared pure democracy, and justifiably so. Here is Madison, in Federalist 10:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

CuteOldGuy · 10-02-2011, 02:48 AM

I thought you didn't care what the Founders thought. Kind of like government, when they agree with you, they should do the "right thing" even if it is against the will of the people. When they don't agree with you, then they should comply with the will of the people, namely you.

I didn't mention pure democracy, but we are governed by the consent of the governed. If you truly desired a representative republic like the one Madison describes in your quote, then you must support repealing the 17th Amendment, which would solve a world of problems.

Whirlaway · 10-02-2011, 07:14 AM

TTH's political philsophy is one of conveninece; he gets bent and twisted like a pretzel trying to explain his positions when all one really need to know is :

TTH thinks he is smarter than the common man and therefore those who disagree should shut the fuck up, sit down and get out of his way Very much like BHO !

But he is moving to the south of France; hopefully soon...whenever as he hits pay dirt suing (and destorying) some innocent doctor or other good-citizen.

Guest040616 · 10-02-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

TTH thinks he is smarter than the common man and therefore those who disagree should shut the fuck up, sit down and get out of his way .

Whirly, it is good to see TTH's message is finally sinking in! He will let you know when you can stand up and speak!

TexTushHog · 10-02-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I thought you didn't care what the Founders thought. Kind of like government, when they agree with you, they should do the "right thing" even if it is against the will of the people. When they don't agree with you, then they should comply with the will of the people, namely you.

I didn't mention pure democracy, but w repealing the 17th Amendment, which would solve are governed by the consent of the governed. If you truly desired a representative republic like the one Madison describes in your quote, then you must supporte a world of problems.

I don't think that the Constitution should necessarily be interpreted by what the various theories are of what the founders thought. That is correct. However, Madison is one of the great political philosophers of our age. I am not talking here about what the Constitution say, or how it should be interpreted. I'm talking about what a wise Congressman should do, and why it would be beneficial in light of our current experiences, and Madison's acute insights into human nature, to amend the Constitution.

And I do not support repealing the 17th Amendment. Doing so would just make it that much easier for special interests to buy Senate seats. I can assure you from our experiences here in Texas that it's much easier to buy a governor's race or State legislative seats (where there are no campaign contribution limits) than it is to buy a Federal Senate seat (which has some limits, although they are being weakened all the time by the Republicans). We need to get the influence of corporate money out of politics, not make it easier for corporations to influence elections.

Whirlaway · 10-03-2011, 11:58 AM

Nieve, dumb, or misleading ! It isn't easier; just cheaper to buy a Texas seat (or anyother state legislature)...

TTH isn't interested in good governance; he just wants the sandbox to be so exclusive that only him and like minded PigsNSuit can play !

But I agree on one point; no coroporation, union, PAC, or other group/entity should be able to give or bundle contributions to federal campgains. But I doubt that TTH really wants equal treatment for all his favorite left wing groups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

.... I can assure you from our experiences here in Texas that it's much easier to buy a governor's race or State legislative seats (where there are no campaign contribution limits) than it is to buy a Federal Senate seat (which has some limits, although they are being weakened all the time by the Republicans). We need to get the influence of corporate money out of politics, not make it easier for corporations to influence elections.

dilbert firestorm · 10-03-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't think that the Constitution should necessarily be interpreted by what the various theories are of what the founders thought. That is correct. However, Madison is one of the great political philosophers of our age. I am not talking here about what the Constitution say, or how it should be interpreted. I'm talking about what a wise Congressman should do, and why it would be beneficial in light of our current experiences, and Madison's acute insights into human nature, to amend the Constitution.

And I do not support repealing the 17th Amendment. Doing so would just make it that much easier for special interests to buy Senate seats. I can assure you from our experiences here in Texas that it's much easier to buy a governor's race or State legislative seats (where there are no campaign contribution limits) than it is to buy a Federal Senate seat (which has some limits, although they are being weakened all the time by the Republicans). We need to get the influence of corporate money out of politics, not make it easier for corporations to influence elections.

that was the reason or the pretense (influence buying) for the passage of the 17th admendment, but the reasoning behind it was false, a lie.

Elected officials are more likely to be influenced than appointed officials.
♠

dilbert firestorm · 10-03-2011, 05:10 PM

with regard to secession, there is another method, all they have to do is call for a Constitutional convention as outlined in the admendment process, and vote out the current Constitution as an admendment and that would end the federal govt.

TexTushHog · 10-03-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Elected officials are more likely to be influenced than appointed officials.

One of the more ridiculous statements I've ever heard. They are just subject to the influence of the one person who appointed them, rather than those who elect them. If you really want to get money out of the equation, have public financing of elections. No private money at all.

CuteOldGuy · 10-03-2011, 10:46 PM

Gawd, TTH, I thought you knew the Constitution. Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were elected by the state legislatures, not appointed. They would be answerable to the state governments, not one official. You can be damn sure if we repealed that amendment, unfunded mandates and encroachments on states rights would stop in a heartbeat. The Senators would actually be closer to the people than the current system, where elections are bought and paid for by Wall Street. State legislators are for the most part, not lifelong politicians, and would be more willing to listen to their constituents than our current system allows.

Geez, you talk like you are a lawyer. Didn't you take a class on the Constitution?

dilbert firestorm · 10-05-2011, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Gawd, TTH, I thought you knew the Constitution. Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were elected by the state legislatures, not appointed. They would be answerable to the state governments, not one official. You can be damn sure if we repealed that amendment, unfunded mandates and encroachments on states rights would stop in a heartbeat. The Senators would actually be closer to the people than the current system, where elections are bought and paid for by Wall Street. State legislators are for the most part, not lifelong politicians, and would be more willing to listen to their constituents than our current system allows.

Geez, you talk like you are a lawyer. Didn't you take a class on the Constitution?

COG, the senators were appointed by the legislature by means of an election.

dilbert firestorm · 10-05-2011, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

One of the more ridiculous statements I've ever heard. They are just subject to the influence of the one person who appointed them, rather than those who elect them. If you really want to get money out of the equation, have public financing of elections. No private money at all.

not a ridiculous statement.

you should know that state legislatures used to appoint senators, not by a single elected official.

CuteOldGuy · 10-05-2011, 09:47 AM

Dilbert, I think that is what I said.

TexTushHog · 10-05-2011, 09:16 PM

Whether appointed by the Governor and subject to ratification of a State legislative body as some proposals call for, or simply elected by State legislatures (as practiced before the 17th Amendment with the attendant additional problems of deadlocks), it's still a horrible idea. Take Texas. If you let the Republicans pick a Senator, you'll get a party hack who is the most extreme ideologue available like Jeb Hensnarling or John Culberson. It will cause more polarization, not less. In California, a moderate like Diane Feinstein wouldn't stand a prayer. You might still have Barbara Boxer, but along with her, you'd have Jerry Brown or Willie Brown. In New York, you'd have Laura DeRosa and Jerry Nadler.