Rand Paul Remarks Lead KY Legislature to Pass CR Resolution

[Cypress]

Don't be such a drama queen. Revisiting birthright citizenship has nothing to do with repealing the 14th amendment. It has to do with clarifying it.

Sorry if you've never read about the active discussion of this subject among constituional scholars and elected leaders since literally the passage of the 14th.

The discussion of whether we should have birthright citizenship has been around a long time and it is incredibly relevant today when speaking about incentives for illegal immigration, which you yourself admit is more a
factor than even the border itself.

Not even the original authors of the fourteeth amendment intended for it to be interpreted in that manner.

If he wants to "stop" the right of people born on american soil from being american citizens, there's absolutly no other way to interpret his remarks than a repeal of the 14th amendment. The language is crystal clear and unabiguous in the 14th.

If you're suggesting the libertarians be put in charge of deciding "which" people born on american soil are citizens, you're going to have to repeal the amendment, and write a new one with clarifying language.

Saying this is not "what the founding fathers intended" is way off the mark. First, the founding fathers didn't adopt the 14th amendment. It was adopted in 1868 way after they all were dead. Second, I don't think the founding fathers intended for people to own rocket launchers or military grade automatic assault rifles. But that doesn't matter, the 2nd amendment is a virtually unlimited right according to libertarians.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

I didn't say the founding fathers authored the 14th amendment. I also edited before this post my own clarification that birthright citizenship should not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.

It would not require a repeal. It would require a new amendment with
clarification citing the 14th amendment.

Let me also add in here as an edit that if the Second Amendment were an unlimited individual right, it would only apply to
arms - not any weapon of any kind.

You're being very sloppy here.

 

[Cypress]

I didn't say the founding fathers authored the 14th amendment. I also edited before this post my own clarification that birthright citizenship should not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.

It would not require a repeal. It would require a new amendment with
clarification citing the 14th amendment.

Let me also add in here as an edit that if the Second Amendment were an unlimited individual right, it would only apply to
arms - not any weapon of any kind.

You're being very sloppy here.

I've never heard of a new amendment, that "clarifies" a former amendment. Although I could be wrong.

Bottom line, he wants to change the United States constitution.

And anyone who wants to change the constitution better have VERY substantial, very valid, and very profound reasons for doing it. Because, any asswipe can whine about some part of the constitution they don't like and screech about changing it. But their reasons better be really freakin' profound and compelling. Because, people who willy-nilly want to change the constitution on provincial, emotional, or parochial grounds scare the shit out of me.

As for me, I reject his premise that "anchor babies" are some sort of horrific and immense problem that requires a constitutional convention.

I reject the premise that there is any sort of deep-seated societal problem with anchor babies at all. I think the whole "anchor babies" crap is a meme that rightwing talk radio and pundits use as a wedge issue. I don't think, in the broad scheme of things, people come here simply to have their babies here. I think its a ruse. Do babies get born here to migrant workers? No doubt.

But I reject the premise that it's some sort of huge, constitutional problem.

And I don't think babies should be punished for the choices of their parents.

And I don't think the government should be in charge of determining who is an american citizen and who isn't. People and families are complex, and there's a multitude of dimensions to how and why some baby might be born here. It's not an issue that can be addressed with two sentences in a constitutional amendment, and no one is realistically in a position to fairly and equitably sort out the "americans" from the "non-americans"

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Hypocrisy! According to you, it's okay to undermine the Constitution legislatively, but when it comes to actually approaching reform of government in the appropriate and permanent manner, someone has to explain their motivation in greaer detail than those who have less respect for the law.

No one is being punished by being required to abide by our laws and to return to their country of origin at an appointed time. Whether they have children or not.

That the government shouldn't be in charge of citizenship sounds almost like an Anarcho-Capitist argument, and I am not one. I think our civil liberties are grounded in our sovereignty. If we don't have a greater right to determine the laws of our country than foreigners we permit to be in the country, we have no rights and we have no country.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Hypocrisy! According to you, it's okay to undermine the Constitution legislatively, but when it comes to actually approaching reform of government in the appropriate and permanent manner, someone has to explain their motivation in greaer detail than those who have less respect for the law.

No one is being punished by being required to abide by our laws and to return to their country of origin at an appointed time. Whether they have children or not.

That the government shouldn't be in charge of citizenship sounds almost like an Anarcho-Capitist argument, and I am not one. I think our civil liberties are grounded in our sovereignty. If we don't have a greater right to determine the laws of our country than foreigners we permit to be in the country, we have no rights and we have no country.

Wow adam. Are you a nativist now? Rock on. You've come a long way, baby!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Adam, did i run this idea by you?

think Night Court meets Battlestar Galatica.

A group of sarcastic, highly verbal and funny Rabbi Judges high up in the the future Galactic Noahide Bet Din jet around the universe making important decisions in the societies of various different planets. Hijinks ensue.

Stars Judd Hirsh and Sarah Silverman.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Saying this is not "what the founding fathers intended" is way off the mark. First, the founding fathers didn't adopt the 14th amendment. It was adopted in 1868 way after they all were dead. Second, I don't think the founding fathers intended for people to own rocket launchers or military grade automatic assault rifles. But that doesn't matter, the 2nd amendment is a virtually unlimited right according to libertarians.

a little history lesson here.

The 14th was adopted to expressly overrule a tyrannical judicial ruling by a racist supreme court that stated recently freed negros could not be US citizens and to counteract the state sanctioned oppression that the USSC legitimized in US v. Cruikshank.

Secondly, what you think about the founding fathers intent on weapon ownership needs to be re-evaluated, considering that they had zero issue with patriots owning warships and cannons, therefore, it would be entirely correct to assume that they also intended the free citizens of this country to own machine guns and rocket launchers.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I've never heard of a new amendment, that "clarifies" a former amendment. Although I could be wrong.

Bottom line, he wants to change the United States constitution.

And anyone who wants to change the constitution better have VERY substantial, very valid, and very profound reasons for doing it. Because, any asswipe can whine about some part of the constitution they don't like and screech about changing it. But their reasons better be really freakin' profound and compelling. Because, people who willy-nilly want to change the constitution on provincial, emotional, or parochial grounds scare the shit out of me.

As for me, I reject his premise that "anchor babies" are some sort of horrific and immense problem that requires a constitutional convention.

I reject the premise that there is any sort of deep-seated societal problem with anchor babies at all. I think the whole "anchor babies" crap is a meme that rightwing talk radio and pundits use as a wedge issue. I don't think, in the broad scheme of things, people come here simply to have their babies here. I think its a ruse. Do babies get born here to migrant workers? No doubt.

But I reject the premise that it's some sort of huge, constitutional problem.

And I don't think babies should be punished for the choices of their parents.

And I don't think the government should be in charge of determining who is an american citizen and who isn't. People and families are complex, and there's a multitude of dimensions to how and why some baby might be born here. It's not an issue that can be addressed with two sentences in a constitutional amendment, and no one is realistically in a position to fairly and equitably sort out the "americans" from the "non-americans"

I disagree fundamentally with the bolded portion.

Amendments to the Constitution have generally been passed when a new problem was noticed, such as the 12th, 20th, and 22nd-24th amendments. It has been amended for purely ideological reasons, such as the 16th and 17th amendments, and one amendment has been passed (21st) for the explicit purpose repealing another (18th).

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I've never heard of a new amendment, that "clarifies" a former amendment. Although I could be wrong.

Bottom line, he wants to change the United States constitution.

And anyone who wants to change the constitution better have VERY substantial, very valid, and very profound reasons for doing it. Because, any asswipe can whine about some part of the constitution they don't like and screech about changing it. But their reasons better be really freakin' profound and compelling. Because, people who willy-nilly want to change the constitution on provincial, emotional, or parochial grounds scare the shit out of me.

As for me, I reject his premise that "anchor babies" are some sort of horrific and immense problem that requires a constitutional convention.

I reject the premise that there is any sort of deep-seated societal problem with anchor babies at all. I think the whole "anchor babies" crap is a meme that rightwing talk radio and pundits use as a wedge issue. I don't think, in the broad scheme of things, people come here simply to have their babies here. I think its a ruse. Do babies get born here to migrant workers? No doubt.

But I reject the premise that it's some sort of huge, constitutional problem.

And I don't think babies should be punished for the choices of their parents.

And I don't think the government should be in charge of determining who is an american citizen and who isn't. People and families are complex, and there's a multitude of dimensions to how and why some baby might be born here. It's not an issue that can be addressed with two sentences in a constitutional amendment, and no one is realistically in a position to fairly and equitably sort out the "americans" from the "non-americans"

"And anyone who wants to change the constitution better have VERY substantial, very valid, and very profound reasons for doing it."

Would that be like trying to change it to state that marriage is only between a man and a woman??

"And I don't think the government should be in charge of determining who is an american citizen and who isn't."

Then who would you want to be in charge of this??

 

[zoombwaz]

Is that the total bullshit false premise you'd tell the homeowners in Arlington, TX that had their homes taken so Jerry Jones could own a new football stadium and parking lot?

No, that was an abuse of the social contract. Eminent domain is a product not of the social contract, but of American exceptionalism, and originally was the view that God had ordained that the United States territory should span the entire continent from ocean to ocean. It was bullshit when we used it to seize California from Mexico, and it was still bullshit when G.W. Bush used it to seize land for a new ballpark for the Rangers in Arlington (unfortunately for the Rangers, some of the land they stole belonged to the Curtis Mathes family, owners of a company of the same name that used to make upscale color TVs, who promptly sued and won, and whose award was trebled when the Rangers appealed). Eminent Domain is crap. It's an over-reach and outside the just powers of government. My premise is neither false nor bullshit. There is a huge difference between limiting a property owner's uses of his property in the public interest on the one hand, and seizing it on the other. Further, it's not a difference of degree but of kind, as the latter does not follow from the former as a logical consequence.

So Jerry Jones ripped off the people of Arlington too? Holy shit. Note to self: do NOT buy real estate in Arlington, TX.

 

[Cypress]

"And anyone who wants to change the constitution better have VERY substantial, very valid, and very profound reasons for doing it."

Would that be like trying to change it to state that marriage is only between a man and a woman??

"And I don't think the government should be in charge of determining who is an american citizen and who isn't."

Then who would you want to be in charge of this??

I'd stop reading the Glenn Beck website if I were you.

1) No liberal that I know of has ever proposed a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriage. It's actually conservatives who have proposed an amendment outlawing it. The right to gay marriage as liberals, and many courts see it, is already vested in the equal protection clause. And states, one by one, are recognizing this and allowing gay marriage. The federal government has no role in marriage. It seems to always be the rigntwing, or perhaps Rand Paul, that are keen on changing the constitution to satisfy emotional or provincial reasons - flag burning, gay marriage, citizenship of children of migrant workers.

2) No government Bureaucrat has the right to decide who is an american and who isn't, pursuant to the 14th amendment. Anyone born here is an american. Rand Paul obviously disagrees.


EDIT:
My bad, I think I misread your first statement. It appears you agree that changing the constitution with respect to marriage issues is frivolous and unwarranted. My apologies and my bad if I misinterpreted your quote.

 

[zoombwaz]

I disagree fundamentally with the bolded portion.

Amendments to the Constitution have generally been passed when a new problem was noticed, such as the 12th, 20th, and 22nd-24th amendments. It has been amended for purely ideological reasons, such as the 16th and 17th amendments, and one amendment has been passed (21st) for the explicit purpose repealing another (18th).

And what "problem" did the 22nd amendment fix? And how are the 16th (income tax) and 17th (direct election of Senators) ideological? The 22nd was ideological, the product of the GOP's frustration at its inability to defeat FDR, so they made sure it couldn't happen to them again, but sure as hell, in typical GOP hypocrisy mode, they started talking about repealing it during the Reagan administration.

For the GOP, the will of the voters is paramount, unless it favors the Democrats, in which case they will obstruct the execution of the voters' will by any means possible, no matter how many formerly GOP positions they have to repudiate because the hated Dems had the gall to incorporate some GOP positions into their legislation. They even took a good GOP idea; allowing Medicare to pay for counseling on wills, advanced medical directives, power of attorney, organ donation, cremation vs burial, all the end of life stuff that everybody should have set up in advance, and vilified it. The GOP, including the Repuglican congressman who was the freaking author of the proposal, turned it into "death panels."

Unbelievable.

 

[Minister of Truth]

And what "problem" did the 22nd amendment fix? And how are the 16th (income tax) and 17th (direct election of Senators) ideological? The 22nd was ideological, the product of the GOP's frustration at its inability to defeat FDR, so they made sure it couldn't happen to them again, but sure as hell, in typical GOP hypocrisy mode, they started talking about repealing it during the Reagan administration.

For the GOP, the will of the voters is paramount, unless it favors the Democrats, in which case they will obstruct the execution of the voters' will by any means possible, no matter how many formerly GOP positions they have to repudiate because the hated Dems had the gall to incorporate some GOP positions into their legislation. They even took a good GOP idea; allowing Medicare to pay for counseling on wills, advanced medical directives, power of attorney, organ donation, cremation vs burial, all the end of life stuff that everybody should have set up in advance, and vilified it. The GOP, including the Repuglican congressman who was the freaking author of the proposal, turned it into "death panels."

Unbelievable.

Amendments 16-18 are the Progressive Amendments, and come from the progressive ideology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The 17th Amendment, which deforms the senate, is very ideological, in that its proponents claim to put more power in the hands of the "people," regardless of the whole purpose of electing senators the way it was originally set up.

The 18th Amendment is classic progressivism, and one of the most ideological, as it demonstrates the belief that society can be improved simply by passing laws, which is the very definition of progressivism.

The 22nd Amendment was viewed by both sides as necessary, because it could be a societal negative to have someone electable that many times. Truman was even specifically exempted, which makes sense. The amendment was not even a denunciation of FDR getting elected 4 times, but instead expresses a sentiment written about by the Founders, that a charismatic leader could sieze a lot of power with the people's approval (like the personality cult that surrounded FDR's cousin Teddy, who did ultimately seek a third term in 1912, and would have done so again in 1920, had he not died suddenly in 1919).

Opposition to the 22nd is fairly bipartisan, as is support, and fluxuates depending upon which party holds the white house.

 

[zoombwaz]

Amendments 16-18 are the Progressive Amendments, and come from the progressive ideology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The 17th Amendment, which deforms the senate, is very ideological, in that its proponents claim to put more power in the hands of the "people," regardless of the whole purpose of electing senators the way it was originally set up.

The 18th Amendment is classic progressivism, and one of the most ideological, as it demonstrates the belief that society can be improved simply by passing laws, which is the very definition of progressivism.

The 22nd Amendment was viewed by both sides as necessary, because it could be a societal negative to have someone electable that many times. Truman was even specifically exempted, which makes sense. The amendment was not even a denunciation of FDR getting elected 4 times, but instead expresses a sentiment written about by the Founders, that a charismatic leader could sieze a lot of power with the people's approval (like the personality cult that surrounded FDR's cousin Teddy, who did ultimately seek a third term in 1912, and would have done so again in 1920, had he not died suddenly in 1919).

Opposition to the 22nd is fairly bipartisan, as is support, and fluxuates depending upon which party holds the white house.

The 18th was classic progressive? What kind of drugs are you on? Prohibition was the work of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, hardly a progressive bunch. It was an attempt by right wing Christians to jam their ideology down everybody else's throats, and its unintended consequence was the creation of organized crime, just as the current prohibition (aka"the war on drugs") has created the murderous drug cartels, and has turned major portions of Afghanistan and Central and South America into narco-states. Prohibition of things identified as social evils, like abortion, alcohol, pot, dancing, interracial dating, homosexuality, hell even heterosexuality if it occurs outside the confines of marriage, and oral or anal sex regardless of sexual identity, and sex education, and birth control (LET'S JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS: THE ANTI-RECREATIONAL SEX AGENDA) is not even remotely progressive. Progressives don't give a shit about prohibiting any of that, and you clearly don't know shit about progressives. Banning "social evils" is the bailiwick largely of the so-called "social conservatives," also known in the media as "low-information voters," and known to those of us with functioning brains as "IGNORANUSES" (yes, that's spelled correctly).

The 17th corrected one of the founders' few errors, the feeling that there needed to be an upper house appointed by state legislatures to balance out the peoples house, antidemocratic in theory, and in practice so much worse. The unintended consequence of the original provision was a senate full of party hacks and those with enough wealth to buy a few state politicians to grease the skids of appointment. The 17th, far from being a progressive ideological amendment, was meant to curtail ongoing problems with the appointment process, including successive legislatures sending different Senators each year, and the obvious problems of bribery and corruption. BTW, are you really saying that only progressives are anti-corruption; that being against corruption in government is an ideological position? So conservatives are pro-corruption? Why doesn't that surprise me? In point of historical fact, in several states the People were already directly electing their senators via referendum on voting day, and the governor would appoint the winner to the Senate. The 17th was meant not only to bring the government closer to the People, but to standardize the process of what is after all, a national office. BTW#2: are you saying that bringing the government closer to the voters is progressive ideology? So conservative ideology would be taking the government away from the voters? I'm glad to see that finally admitted, and that does dovetail nicely with the conservatives' pro-corruption stance. Are the cons also against standardizing election processes? Well, of course they are. It makes elections easier to steal when you have dozens of different processes. Standardization would close a lot of loopholes. So to sum up, conservatives are anti-democratic, anti-standardization, and pro-corruption, all of which is currently on glorious daily display in Washington, D.C.

.With regard to your nonsense regarding the 22nd amendment, you wrote, and I quote verbatim, "it could be a societal negative to have someone electable that many times." Care to explain that logical howler, bucko? If he's electable, that means the people want him to return and continue his policies. Do you have a problem with that?

Well, of course you do We've already established that you are pro-corruption, and anti-democratic. Of course you would have a problem with a hugely popular president, because like all cons, you clearly believe that the government does not exist for the benefit of the People. I suppose you would have preferred that government "of the People, by the People, and for the People" had perished from the earth in the 1860's. BTW#3, the reason Truman was exempted was to get democrats to sign on. Despite that, what you allege was a bipartisan amendment took 1,439 days to be ratified, compared to the 17th, which you claim was "very ideological", but was ratified in only 330 days.

 

[Minister of Truth]

1) I am personally very anti-democratic, as were the Founders, just as a point of clarification. I can't help that post-Jackson, democracy has become more sought after by Americans than good old-fashioned republicanism.

2) You can read up on the Progressive Era here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era#Prohibition

I even specifically bookmarked it at Prohibition, but feel free to scroll up a bit.

The reason why the 18th is Progressive has little to do with the Christian Temperance movement, which helped pass the amendment, and everything to do with the fact that classical progressivism believed that social improvements in society could be made via mere legislation. Don't get confused with the fact that modern leftists have started calling themselves progressives instead of liberals, due to the fact that they have already sullied up one mislabel, and want a better bookcover.

3) The Founders got the Senate exactly right. A legislative body designed to represent the interests of the states, rather than the people of specific districts (or the popular whims of states in the case of single district states). The differing interests brought to the Senate would naturally conflict with those brought to the House, which was believed to be more important than the mere gridlock that occasions having a bicameral system in general. Now the Senate has few statesmen, and is far less of a check on the other house. It has also diverted public attention away from their legislative bodies, which once selected the US Senate, and voted for presidential Electors.

 

[Liberty]

The 18th was classic progressive? What kind of drugs are you on? Prohibition was the work of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, hardly a progressive bunch. It was an attempt by right wing Christians to jam their ideology down everybody else's throats, and its unintended consequence was the creation of organized crime, just as the current prohibition (aka"the war on drugs") has created the murderous drug cartels, and has turned major portions of Afghanistan and Central and South America into narco-states. Prohibition of things identified as social evils, like abortion, alcohol, pot, dancing, interracial dating, homosexuality, hell even heterosexuality if it occurs outside the confines of marriage, and oral or anal sex regardless of sexual identity, and sex education, and birth control (LET'S JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS: THE ANTI-RECREATIONAL SEX AGENDA) is not even remotely progressive. Progressives don't give a shit about prohibiting any of that, and you clearly don't know shit about progressives. Banning "social evils" is the bailiwick largely of the so-called "social conservatives," also known in the media as "low-information voters," and known to those of us with functioning brains as "IGNORANUSES" (yes, that's spelled correctly).

The 17th corrected one of the founders' few errors, the feeling that there needed to be an upper house appointed by state legislatures to balance out the peoples house, antidemocratic in theory, and in practice so much worse. The unintended consequence of the original provision was a senate full of party hacks and those with enough wealth to buy a few state politicians to grease the skids of appointment. The 17th, far from being a progressive ideological amendment, was meant to curtail ongoing problems with the appointment process, including successive legislatures sending different Senators each year, and the obvious problems of bribery and corruption. BTW, are you really saying that only progressives are anti-corruption; that being against corruption in government is an ideological position? So conservatives are pro-corruption? Why doesn't that surprise me? In point of historical fact, in several states the People were already directly electing their senators via referendum on voting day, and the governor would appoint the winner to the Senate. The 17th was meant not only to bring the government closer to the People, but to standardize the process of what is after all, a national office. BTW#2: are you saying that bringing the government closer to the voters is progressive ideology? So conservative ideology would be taking the government away from the voters? I'm glad to see that finally admitted, and that does dovetail nicely with the conservatives' pro-corruption stance. Are the cons also against standardizing election processes? Well, of course they are. It makes elections easier to steal when you have dozens of different processes. Standardization would close a lot of loopholes. So to sum up, conservatives are anti-democratic, anti-standardization, and pro-corruption, all of which is currently on glorious daily display in Washington, D.C.

.With regard to your nonsense regarding the 22nd amendment, you wrote, and I quote verbatim, "it could be a societal negative to have someone electable that many times." Care to explain that logical howler, bucko? If he's electable, that means the people want him to return and continue his policies. Do you have a problem with that?

Well, of course you do We've already established that you are pro-corruption, and anti-democratic. Of course you would have a problem with a hugely popular president, because like all cons, you clearly believe that the government does not exist for the benefit of the People. I suppose you would have preferred that government "of the People, by the People, and for the People" had perished from the earth in the 1860's. BTW#3, the reason Truman was exempted was to get democrats to sign on. Despite that, what you allege was a bipartisan amendment took 1,439 days to be ratified, compared to the 17th, which you claim was "very ideological", but was ratified in only 330 days.

Tthe only thing I like about what you say is your hate for the republicans, but you seem to give the democrats a free ride. You lose any credibility by saying nothing condemning about the democrats.

The democrats are also anti-democratic.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I've never heard of a new amendment, that "clarifies" a former amendment. Although I could be wrong.

There is none but some ammendmends do supercede or modify (clarify) "Articles" of the US Constitution. For example, the very Ammendment you reference, Ammendment 14, modiefies Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

[B
"And I don't think the government should be in charge of determining who is an american citizen and who isn't."

Then who would you want to be in charge of this??

That's both a good point and a good question.

 

[zoombwaz]

Tthe only thing I like about what you say is your hate for the republicans, but you seem to give the democrats a free ride. You lose any credibility by saying nothing condemning about the democrats.

The democrats are also anti-democratic.

Just because i haven't ripped into the Democrats yet doesn't mean I give them a free ride. In terms of my loss of credibility because i didn't rip them equally for being anti-democratic, that's utter horseshit. First, I didn't rip Republicans per se for being anti-democratic, and in fact did not use the terms "Republican" or "GOP" in this post, and used the term "democrats" once. For the entire post, I spoke only in terms of conservatives vs progressives, and while "conservatives" has become largely synonymous with Republicans," the same can't be said of "progressives" and "Democrats," which unfortunately are nowhere near synonymous. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC),of which Bill Clinton was a founding member, if memory serves, and who are currently headed by Harold Ford, are funded with corporate money, and are (surprise!!) pro-corporate, anti-democratic, faux-centrist, GOP-Lite phonies who have sold out to the corporate oligarchy's agenda. There is no such thing as a true centrist in the US today: the fight is between pro-democratic progressives and anti-democratic corporately funded so-called conservatives, who are actually regressives, as true principled conservatives believe in personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, and limited government, none of which are evident in the current crop of regressives.
to the following fact, because it is crucial to understanding what is really happening in this country: B]THERE IS NO CENTRIST POSITION BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND THE FORCES OF OLIGARCHY AND PLUTOCRACY[/B]. There can be none by definition. Plutocracy and oligarchy rely on the concentration of economic and political power, while democracy is the ultimate dilution of power, and there is no compromise position between them. After all, how much sovereignty are you willing to surrender to unelected CEOs, and to what end? And do you think for a second that your first compromise to them will be your last? Even Adam Smith distrusted corporations. The "free market" ideologues who love to quote The Wealth of Nations sem to leave that little tidbit out. The market he envisioned was peopled by sole proprietorships with full liability for their actions and some sense of civic duty, not amoral LLCs with no social responsibility. Anybody who claims to be a centrist in this struggle is a liar and a corporate stooge.

For those who may be thinking I'm being alarmist, let me ask you something: do you think for a second that the forces of aristocracy and corporate power (the British East India Company) accepted their defeat by the forces of those class traitors who began this experiment in representative democracy? Do you think they folded their tents and apologetically backed away into the night, mumbling, "You were right and we were wrong. Please accept our humble apologies for making your lives hell. It won't happen again. Our bad." Hell no. Their ideological descendants are trying to pull the same shit. Wake the fuck up.

 

[apple0154]

The 18th was classic progressive? What kind of drugs are you on? Prohibition was the work of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, hardly a progressive bunch.

Which reminds me I have a bronze medallion depicting the bust.....oops, I mean the upper body .....of Frances E. Willard prominently displayed on my bar between a bottle of Glenlivet and one of Johnnie Walker Black.

Good to see you again, Zoom!

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The 18th was classic progressive? What kind of drugs are you on? Prohibition was the work of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, hardly a progressive bunch. It was an attempt by right wing Christians to jam their ideology down everybody else's throats, and its unintended consequence was the creation of organized crime, just as the current prohibition (aka"the war on drugs") has created the murderous drug cartels, and has turned major portions of Afghanistan and Central and South America into narco-states. Prohibition of things identified as social evils, like abortion, alcohol, pot, dancing, interracial dating, homosexuality, hell even heterosexuality if it occurs outside the confines of marriage, and oral or anal sex regardless of sexual identity, and sex education, and birth control (LET'S JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS: THE ANTI-RECREATIONAL SEX AGENDA) is not even remotely progressive. Progressives don't give a shit about prohibiting any of that, and you clearly don't know shit about progressives. Banning "social evils" is the bailiwick largely of the so-called "social conservatives," also known in the media as "low-information voters," and known to those of us with functioning brains as "IGNORANUSES" (yes, that's spelled correctly).

The 17th corrected one of the founders' few errors, the feeling that there needed to be an upper house appointed by state legislatures to balance out the peoples house, antidemocratic in theory, and in practice so much worse. The unintended consequence of the original provision was a senate full of party hacks and those with enough wealth to buy a few state politicians to grease the skids of appointment. The 17th, far from being a progressive ideological amendment, was meant to curtail ongoing problems with the appointment process, including successive legislatures sending different Senators each year, and the obvious problems of bribery and corruption. BTW, are you really saying that only progressives are anti-corruption; that being against corruption in government is an ideological position? So conservatives are pro-corruption? Why doesn't that surprise me? In point of historical fact, in several states the People were already directly electing their senators via referendum on voting day, and the governor would appoint the winner to the Senate. The 17th was meant not only to bring the government closer to the People, but to standardize the process of what is after all, a national office. BTW#2: are you saying that bringing the government closer to the voters is progressive ideology? So conservative ideology would be taking the government away from the voters? I'm glad to see that finally admitted, and that does dovetail nicely with the conservatives' pro-corruption stance. Are the cons also against standardizing election processes? Well, of course they are. It makes elections easier to steal when you have dozens of different processes. Standardization would close a lot of loopholes. So to sum up, conservatives are anti-democratic, anti-standardization, and pro-corruption, all of which is currently on glorious daily display in Washington, D.C.

.With regard to your nonsense regarding the 22nd amendment, you wrote, and I quote verbatim, "it could be a societal negative to have someone electable that many times." Care to explain that logical howler, bucko? If he's electable, that means the people want him to return and continue his policies. Do you have a problem with that?

Well, of course you do We've already established that you are pro-corruption, and anti-democratic. Of course you would have a problem with a hugely popular president, because like all cons, you clearly believe that the government does not exist for the benefit of the People. I suppose you would have preferred that government "of the People, by the People, and for the People" had perished from the earth in the 1860's. BTW#3, the reason Truman was exempted was to get democrats to sign on. Despite that, what you allege was a bipartisan amendment took 1,439 days to be ratified, compared to the 17th, which you claim was "very ideological", but was ratified in only 330 days.