They did? This is news to me.
It was my understanding that the Temperance Movement was the primarily the result of the first flexing of muscle of women’s organisations.
Obviously that must be an oversimplification.
My Prohibition argument was weak from the start. Precisly because it was an amendment.
And as you say, minorities don’t get amendments passed.
I think we can officially chuck this 1 out.
Excellent job, Otto. That’s 2 for you.
Well, my OP is looking pretty tattered. Any more conssesions and it might disapear.
Rather than using my previous method of attacking specific statements, I’m going to try to explain this from the top. I’ll start by quoting from the Declaration of Independence.
That is, the purpose of instituting a government is to secure the people’s rights. That’s what the Constitution does. I consider secure to include making it hard for them to be voted away.
As for the states rights thing, Congress has the power to make laws that affect not just the people, but the states themselves. Each state governs its own people according to its laws. By giving each state equal representation in the Senate, the sovereignty of each state is better protected. Doing this protects the people by ensuring that the laws in a smaller state are just as valid as those in a large state.
I see this as part of the Tyranny of the Majority argument.
If you don’t trust the citizens to vote wisely, what is the basis for your democracy?
The constitution itself?
I call that the Tyranny of the Dead People
I believe that trying to protect people from themselves is not a road I would wish to walk.
I have not the wisdom for it.
Are the states sovereign?
Sovereignty is a slippery concept here in the States.
The framers were obviously concerned about protecting the sovereignty of the states. But should we be today?
If the country downsized into say 4 large districts. Would the people have less protection? This would certainly save money.
There is no real interesting story behind my handle. It is simply the ID my college gave me to log on to our computer network, and as my email address. It consists of the first five letters of my last name, my first initial, and the number 2 to differentiate me from someone else.
As to the Constitution argument, my goal is not to protect the people from themselves, but to protect the minority from the majority. Yeah, we’re not going to vote our own rights away, but I consider them better protected under the Tyranny of Dead People. For one thing, Dead People don’t come up with as many stupid new ideas that will take away any of my rights.
Well, it is now official that 2sense “hears but does not listen.” I base this claim on his/her earlier post that implies he/she only thinks there’s one way to amend the Constitution.
Just for entertainment value, let’s examine five things.
First, Article V of the Constitution:
Now, for those of us who read and understand, this obviously blows out of the water your assertion that “Also the constitutional ammendment powers stayed with the state legislatures.” The way I read it, there is also the option of Conventions in the several States having that power. Or did you forget to read Section 6 of Article XX of the Amendments to the Constitution? Just in case you did forget to do just that, here it is:
Okay, it has now been proven that you don’t know what you’re talking about regarding the amendment process. On to the document itself!
Article I, Preamble
[quote]
We the people of the United States, in Order to from a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the ocmmon defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure theBlessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Poster, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION, for the United States of America.*
Point by point, here’s what they said they’d do and then what happened:
Form a more perfect union - Happened, this one’s lasted decidely longer than the previous one under the Articles of Confedertion. I use this in the sense that the government of the nation was replaced, not the nation itself being replaced.
Establish Justice - Apparently that’s happened, what with all the court decisions against State and Federal Executives throughout the history of the Constitution.
Insure domestic Tranquility - So far, we’ve had one Civil War; that’s a heck of a lot better than many of the democracies on this planet. BTW, the largest democracy (India) is having quite a time trying to have “domestic Tranquility.” I think I’ll go with the Founding Fathers as having done this one right too.
Third, your assertion that this should be a 100% democracy and not a republic. Well, you changed your stance on that quite rapidly (see your own postings). I’d have to say that kind of shows you’re wishy-washy on the issues at hand.
Fourth, regarding my enumerations earlier as just my opinions: You couldn’t be more wrong on that as one of those enumerations was regarding the Separation of Church and State. That’s not only my opinion, but also the opinions of the Courts and some of our Founding Fathers. Please be so kind as to add “History Class” to “Civics Class.”
Fifth, your profile on this site states:
I’m not sure if you meant “Language, History” or “Language History” as in “History of Language” but given your rife with errors stance on the Constitution, I’d have to say it’s the latter and not the former. Anyway, you did say you’re interested in “Solution Oriented Politics.” What’s your solution to this terrible mess our proven-to-work government is? All I see is your complaints about it. And although I consider your points to be invalid, I’ll listen to you provided you have a workable solution.
Just in case you decide to throw at me “What’s your workable solution, Monty?”, please refer to the Constitution. I believe it’s working quite well. And never call me “my boy” again.
I found your post vindictive. That is not the tone of this thread.
This is a thread on a serious topic, with a strong undertone of humor.
Please refer to the OP.
If I were going to be upset by jokes, then I would find another thread to post on.
I find jokes to be funny. I tend to make fun of myself more than others.
The standards of humor in the OP will continue to be used by me.
The standards of logic in th OP hopefully will be improved.
Your points,
article 5
Yes, I assert that the amendment powers stayed with the state legislatures.
Okay, It has now been proven that you don’t know what I’m talking about regarding the amendment process. On to the document itself.
Form more perfect union. Happened. The present constitution is certainly better than the “eternal” articles of confederation.
{6sense- Damn them with faint praise.}
{1sense- Plus, its name is MUCH snazzier.}
Establish justice. Many disagree. I do. But I am not arguing this point.
Insure domestic tranquillity. Here I disagree. I have made the point that I believe this document helped cause the war. And what about lynchings and riots? My parents moved us out of Detroit after the '72 riots.
And just how tranquill are inner city neigborhoods?
I have not asserted that 100% democracy is best. I think we definitly need more democracy.
Changing my stand does not make me wishy-washy. It shows my maturity in accepting the concept I might be wrong.
As for your opinions. IIRC(insolently refusing to check my own posts) I said your points were your points. I didn’t bring them up.
As I said earlier, I am not discussing Church and State. Whats the problem here?
I have no idea what your last quote is about. What profile? I don’t know of any profile.
{6sense- WARNING: Curing his ignorance will lead to an attempt at humor)
I repeat: This is not a solutions thread.
As for your final statement.
Once we remove its mask we see it is a thinly veiled threat.
{1sense- Now thats what I call humor.}
What have I done to insult you so?
Do you think threats are acceptable?
Please feel free not to respond to this post.
Conspicuously avoiding the subject of my potential egomania in quoting myself, I reply:
Well if you don’t believe that the Constitution is supposed to do it in the first place, then it’s hardly fair to say it’s not doing a good job when it doesn’t do it. Or something. You could say you think it should protect the majority, but I think the way you put it was misleading. I could be wrong, though. It’s happened before.
As for asking who doesn’t hold the majority in esteem, that would be me, for one. Probably a lot of other people, too. “Popular is good” is no way to run a government. It tramples the rights of the unpopular. Remember, the classic (or is that classical?) example of a pure democracy made Socrates drink Hemlock for being unpopular. Not the type of place I’d care to live.
“Are you frightened of snakes?”
“Only when they dress like werewolves.”
-Preacher
And exactly in what way was my posting vindictive? What you seem to be missing is that when you post something demonstrably false, at least one of us who know the actual truth will post the correction. If you find that vindictive, you’re certainly in for a rude awakening in high school or college, let alone in the real life of the business world.
Regarding your continued assertion about Article V of the Constitution: Look, you can edit out as much as you like with the “…” all you want; however, the honest thing to do when using such is to not change the meaning of the quoted section. As the document itself provides for another means of ratification, which has actually been used, it would behoove you greatly to quit making the errant assertion.
You may not have noticed this, but you initial assertion about “all Americans” has already been proven wrong. So have your other assertions. Give it a rest.
Thanks for the post.
I haven’t finished with this yet.
I will go back and tie up loose ends.
I’m stepping back for a while.
My tiff with Monty made me upset.
Sometimes I get huffy. I dunno.
By the way, was I right about the translation?
I’m sorry for the confusion.
I was saying supposed to… not as in should.
But as intended to.
I think that it should. But I don’t think thats what it was meant to do.
Also I see now that I didn’t explain myself well.
I was saying that the constitution was intended to protect a minority(The lily-white asses of the class which wrote it) from the majority(Real Americans).
I think you can remove the effects of my prejudice to see my point.
I was relly hoping to spring this on someone a bit more indignant than you.
That’s what the sensless raving on the rest of my post was about.
You seem like a good guy.
It’s to bad we don’t agree on the rule of majority thing.
Unfortunatly I am going to have to savage you unmercifully.
I’m kidding. 1sense is the intollerent one.
Sweat little old me is just pure sugar.
Sometimes psychosis is usefull.
{1sense- I am NOT a sock puppet!}
After repeatedly promising to tie up loose threads, I have changed my mind.
So on the off chance that someone is waiting breathlessly for more pearls of wisdom from me, if you repost today, I will try to answer. After today I will be gone in TscRW for over a week.
Monty: I like to think I was getting the best of you in our argument. But then I lost my temper. I hate it when I sound like an angry child. So, I’ll give this round to you.
If no one wants to respond, then we can let this thread continue its slide down the charts.
Thanks everyone for posting on my first thread. RoboDude in particular.
Touched by the coupstick of Monty.
Just putting my 2sense in.
Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered.
-Thomas Paine (fugitive slave catcher)
*I’m packing up my game, and I’m gonna head out west.
Where real women call me quick,
with scripts and fake breasts.
Find a nest in the hills, chill like Flynt.
Buy an old drop-top, find a spot to pimp.[
-Kid Rock
translation for the tragicly unhip:
“Are YOU my daddy?”
Let me guess: now that the school vacation’s over, 2sense checked with a teacher and got shown in person what some ofus here tried to tell him/her. Good grief.
Hmmm… might be nice to have representation by PARTY, like in many parliamentary “democratic” republics. Of course, instituting this would require a constitutional overhaul, and that would be VERY risky–who knows what mess we’d get?
Party per bend sinister wavy bendy sinister wavy vert & or, & sable, in fess point a demi-pellet ensorcelled rayonny or inverted & bendwise sinister issuant from the party, in sinister base a roundel bendy sinister wavy vert & or.
Or something… Oh, just go here.
We’d get a system like France’s. And nobody wants a system like France’s. We’d wake up one morning and find out that Germany expressed surprise when, after they said something stern to us in the U.N. General Assembly, we surrendered to them.
“Are you frightened of snakes?”
“Only when they dress like werewolves.”
-Preacher
Monty:
It’s good to hear from you again, Your Viciousness.
Bad guess. Again. I’m 31. And male.
And I will not forget the feel of your coupstick on my flesh. Kisses.
Foolsguinea:
I agree with both your points.
Lux Fiat;
I am aware that the french system is not perfect. But in some respects it is superior to our own. I notice that french cities are not falling apart, for instance.
Well, that’s probably it for this week. I will check this thread when I get back.
Just putting my 2sense in.
Tyranny,* like Hell*,* is not easily conquered*.
-Thomas Paine (fugitive slave catcher)
“Telling the Truth” & “Reading English as written” constitute being vicious in your eyes, huh? That wasn’t even a nice try at an ad hominem attack, sport.
Sex and age actually have nothing to do with attending school. Or aren’t you aware of a thing in this land called “Adult Education?”
Coup? Coupstick? What are you talking about?
Nor are the cities in the Unites States. Both cities in France and cities in the United Stated do have some problems, however. One problem is inner city blight, another is slums, yet another is deficient infrastructure for the population.
Well, when you get back, please be so kind as to actually make a point, a sensible one, even. BTW: thanks for starting out with the Constitution, proving you know nothing about it, and then moving on to France’s cities, and yet again proving you know nothing about the subject you brought up.
2Sense, when you get back please try to back up that point about cities in this country “falling apart”, after living my entire life in Boston, I’ve never noticed this. Perhaps you know something I don’t. Also, you might want to back up your main assertion that the American system of government is “broken”, which you have simply asserted, without backing up at all. Rational debate cannot begin by stating as a premise something that is contrary to the widely held opinion, and refusing to even consider that it’s mistaken.
